Madras High Court
K.Balakrishnan vs Kala on 18 December, 2020
CRP(PD).No.2204 of 2020
and CMP.No.13898 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
CRP(PD).No.2204 of 2020
and
CMP.No.13898 of 2020
K.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner/Defendant
Versus
Kala ... Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950 to set aside the order of the
learned Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet made in
I.A.SR.No.2300 of 2020, dated 05.11.2020 and direct the Court
below to take on file and decide the same on merits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyathuraj
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet made in I.A.SR.No.2300 of 2020, dated 05.11.2020.
2.The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.52 of 2017 is the revision petitioner herein.
3.The respondent herein/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.52 of 2017, on the file of the learned Additional District https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 1/4 CRP(PD).No.2204 of 2020 and CMP.No.13898 of 2020 Munsif Court, Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi District, for declaration of title deeds and for permanent injunction. The revision petitioner/defendant had filed written statement in the said suit by alleging that the plaintiff had encroached upon the property belong to him and during the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner/defendant had filed an application in I.A.SR.No.2300 of 2017, before the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC. In the said application, he had used the sentence “the defendant enjoying the property and to the factum of defendants possession” (translated in English) and hence, the learned Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet, held that the defendant cannot seek for the prayer to note down the possession of the defendant in the suit property and accordingly, rejected the application at the SR stage. As aggrieved against the said order, the defendant has preferred this petition.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5.In view of the sentence viz.,”The defendant is in possession and to note down, the defendant possession in the suit property”, the reasoning observed by the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/4 CRP(PD).No.2204 of 2020 and CMP.No.13898 of 2020 Additional District Munsif, is correct in holding so and rightly rejected.
6.However, Mr.S.Ayyathuraj, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention that the dispute between the party is with regard to who is in possession to what extent and hence, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is necessary and there was some error in drafting petition and hence, he seeks liberty.
7.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is given the petitioner to move application for appoint of Advocate Commissioner.
8.With the above liberty, this Civil Revision Petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.12.2020 dua Speaking Order:Yes/No Note:Issue order copy on 23.12.2020 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN., J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/4 CRP(PD).No.2204 of 2020 and CMP.No.13898 of 2020 dua To
1.The learned Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. CRP(PD).No.2204 of 2020
and CMP.No.13898 of 2020 18.12.2020 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/4