Madras High Court
Veerachinnu vs Sago. Nesam on 23 March, 2016
Author: V.M. Velumani
Bench: V.M. Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.03.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI
CRP (MD).No.1925 of 2013 and
M.P(MD).No.2 of 2013
1. Veerachinnu
2. Pattayan
3. Raja Manickam
4. C. Sethumani : Revision Petitioners
Vs.
1. Sago. Nesam
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Village Panchayat,
Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
4. The President,
Rayappanpatti Village,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District. : Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.09.2012
made in I.A.No.475 of 2012 in O.S.No.137 of 2012 on the file of District
Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam.
!For Petitioner : Mr. G.R.Swaminathan
for Mr. D. Rajkumar
^For R1 : Mr. A. Arumugam
for M/s. Ajmal Associates
For R4 : Mr.G. Muthukannan
:ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.09.2012 made in I.A.No.475 of 2012 in O.S.No.137 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam.
2. The revision petitioners are defendants 5 to 8. The first respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.137 of 2012 . The respondents 2 to 5 are the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit.
3. The first respondent filed a suit for declaration that the suit property belongs to them and for permanent injunction. They have filed I.A.No.475 of 2012 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the same had been opposed by the petitioners. But, the learned Judge allowed the application. Against that, the present revision is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that already suit property was measured along with Taluk Surveyor and report was filed in W.P(MD).No.5155 of 2012 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same has been recorded in the order dated 23.04.2012.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. The report relied on by the counsel for the petitioners is in the absence of the first respondent. He further submitted that whether the plan filed by the Taluk Surveyor is correct or not is to be found out.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. A reading of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 23.04.2012 made in W.P(MD).No.5155 of 2012, reveals that the Survey was conducted in respect of the property in S.Nos. 3/6, 3/7A, 7B, situated at Royappanpatty Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. The Survey was conducted in the absence of the first respondent. The learned counsel for parties submitted that the matter may be remanded to trial Court for fresh consideration on merits taking into account the report filed before Division Bench of this Court.
8. In the circumstances, without deciding the issue on merits, the order dated 24.09.2012 made in I.A.No.475 of 2012 in O.S.No.137 of 2012, passed by the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam. The learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, is directed to consider the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, after giving opportunity to both parties to let in oral and documentary evidence and pass order on merits, taking into consideration of the report of third respondent filed before Division Bench of this Court.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of . No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To The learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, .