Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

M.Kaviarasu vs O.Krishnasamy Reddiar

Madras High Court|03 August, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation for the respondent. Respondent called absent and set ex-parte.
2.It is found that the suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. It is also seen that pending suit, the Commissioner inspected the property and filed his report. It is further seen that the petitioner/defendant has filed his objections to the Commissioner report and the matter is proceeded further and the matter now is part-heard i.e at the stage of plaintiff's further evidence. The Commissioner, who had inspected the property has subsequently filed memo before the Court below along with the Survey report and plan and the same has been entertained by the Court. It is also further seen that the copy of the memo along with the survey report and plan have been furnished to both plaintiff counsel and defendant counsel.
3.Aggrieved over the approach of the Court below in entertaining the subsequent memo filed by the Commissioner along with the survey report and plan, the present revision petition has been preferred.
4.It is found that the Commissioner is not required to file any separate petition for the receipt of survey report and plan. Though, belatedly, the memo has been filed by the Commissioner along with Survey report and plan, and the same had been furnished to both parties, if at all either the defendant or the plaintiff has any grievance over the survey report and plan subsequently filed by the Commissioner along with the memo, they have to file additional objections to the same and get along with the suit. Without resorting to the said course, challenging the same and thereby stalling the trial proceedings further cannot be appreciated.
5.In the light of the above position, the approach of the Court below in entertaining the memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner along with the survey report and plan cannot be as such faulted. However, it is open to both defendant as well as the plaintiff, if they are aggrieved by the survey report and plan, subsequently filed by the Commissioner, to prefer the additional objection and get along with the trial.
6.With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The District Munsif, Vilathikulam.
.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M.Kaviarasu vs O.Krishnasamy Reddiar

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
03 August, 2017