This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.09.2011 made in I.A.No.224 of 2011 in O.S.No.103 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur.
2. The petitioner is plaintiff, respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.193 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and a mandatory injunction, directing the respondents 6 to 8 to measure and sub divide the suit property and to grant patta in the name of the petitioner. Pending suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.224 of 2011 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of a Surveyor and file his report.
3. According to the petitioner, the property originally belonged to his grand father, Annasami Reddi. After his demise, his sons inherited the property. They sold some portions of the land to third parties. They agreed to partition the remaining extents of land, according to their share. Now, the respondents 1 and 5 are claiming share as per the partition agreement. In view of the same, the petitioner has filed the present application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The fifth respondent filed counter and denied the averments made in the affidavit and submitted that the petitioner has prayed for mandatory injunction, which cannot be granted. The petitioner is indirectly collecting the evidence for obtaining the relief of mandatory injunction.
4. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and the fact that the suit is for permanent injunction and it is for the petitioner to prove his possession, dismissed the application.
5. Against the said order dated 08.09.2011 made in I.A.No.224 of 2011 in O.S.No.103 of 2010, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the materials on record.
7. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the suit is for permanent injunction and a mandatory injunction. To succeed in the suit for permanent injunction, the petitioner must prove his possession and the interference of the respondents. In nature of the said relief, there is no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property with the help of the Surveyor. It is for the petitioner to prove his possession. The petitioner has stated that certain portions of the property were sold to third parties and to find out the extent of lands sold, the Advocate Commissioner must be appointed. The petitioner can prove the extent of lands sold through the sale deeds. There is no necessity for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to find out the extent of lands sold.
8. In the circumstances, the learned Judge, considering all the above facts, dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reasons. There is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 08.09.2011.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Since the suit is of the year 2010, the learned Judge is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
26.07.2017 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gsa To The District Munsif, Sholinghur.
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
gsa C.R.P.(PD)No.1489 of 2012 26.07.2017