← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/2889/2019disposed of

Tamizharasi v. Singaravelu

2023-02-02Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 02.02.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN C.R.P. No.2889 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.18778 of 2019 Tamizharasi .....

Petitioner Vs

1. Singaravelu Pillai

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by District Collector, Thiruvarur Having office at District Collectorate Thiruvarur.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvarur Having office at Thiruvarur.

4. The Tahsildar, Nannilam, Having office at Taluk Office, Nannilam, Thiruvarur District.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 26.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.32 of 2014 in O.S.No.122 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arunbabu For R1 : Mr.A.Muthukumar For R2 to R4 : Mr.C.Sathish Government Advocate

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the order and decreetal order dated 26.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.32 of 2014 in O.S.No.122 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, thereby dismissing the petition seeking for reissuance of Advocate Commissioner's warrant.

2. The petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent for declaration and mandatory injunction. Pending suit, the first respondent filed an application for appointment of Advocte Commissioner in order to measure the suit property and to note down the physical features of the same with the help of surveyor. The said application was allowed and the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property and measured the same and filed his report. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for re-issuance of Advocate Commissioner's warrant for re-visiting the property with the help of surveyor and file a fresh report for the reason that the surveyor completely filed different FMB Sketch as if the petitioner encroached the property belonging to the 2/4

first respondent herein. Further the Advocate Commissioner submitted a plan by wrongly stating the four sides. However, it was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. A perusal of the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan reveals that all the four sides were wrongly mentioned.

4. Considering the above, the Advocate Commissioner is directed to re-visit the property and submit a fresh rough plan by marking the correct four sides, to the Trial Court.

5. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. The suit of the year is 2011 and as such, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a fresh rough plan from the Advocate Commissioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 02.02.2023.

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Lpp G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

3/4

Lpp To The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam.

C.R.P. No.2889 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.18778 of 2019 02.02.2023 4/4