Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: paimash in M.Mohan vs P.Duraisami Naidu on 3 November, 2020Matching Fragments
3. At this juncture, it appears that the defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.1069 of 2017 to reissue the warrant to the very same Advocate Commissioner directing to take the paimash number as a criteria for taking the physical features and also to measure the suit land from West to East. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge and hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that paimash number and relevant resurvey number are essential for determination of the lis between the parties and the lie of the property has to be measured by the Advocate Commissioner only from East to West and not from West to East. The Advocate Commissioner has measured the suit property from Western side but it should have been from the Eastern side.
5. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The schedule of the http://www.judis.nic.in property mentioned in the plaint and the averments in the written statement and also the schedule of the property mentioned in I.A.No.896 of 2016 are referred only the survey number and not the paimash number and hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Advocate Commissioner has to reinspect the suit property with regard to paimash number appears to be vague and unimaginable.
6. Furthermore, with the help of a Taluk Surveyor the Advocate Commissioner has inspected the suit property from Western side. According to the petitioner, it should have been from the Eastern side. After going through the Advocate Commissioner's report and the objection to the Advocate Commissioner's report filed by the defendants, I find that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application in I.A.No.1069 of 2017. It is only to mix up the facts and also to confuse the pleadings. Neither in the plaint nor in the written statement, there was no mentioning about the paimash number for determining the correlation of the resurvey number.