This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal order of the learned District Munsif at Tiruchengode, dated 06.08.2011 made in I.A.No.416 of 2011 in O.S.No.98 of 2011.
2. The learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode, vide the above order dated 06.08.2011 has partly allowed the respondent/plaintiff application filed under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of Advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property and to file a plan.
3. The respondents as plaintiffs have filed the above suit for permanent injunction as against the respondents.
4. According to the respondents the suit properties are their exclusive ancestral properties and they are in Joint possession. It is their case that the defendant who are adjacent land owners having constructed a house in their property attempted to encroach upon over the respondent’s properties on 24.03.2011. Hence the above suit.
5. I heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire materials available on record.
6. The revision petitioners/defendants filed the written statement contenting that there is common cart tract existed time memorial used by the entire village and hamlets.
7. It is their case that the revision petitioners have right to ingress and egress through said cart tract. It is their further case that the said cart tract was attempted to dismantle by plaintiffs by annexing with their land. The said attempt was prevented by the revision petitioners.
8. In the said circumstance, the respondent/plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.416 of 2011 under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of Advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the properties and file a plan. The Learned Trial Judge has partly allowed the respondent application with direction to the commissioner to inspect the suit properties and as to find whether there is connectivity of such alleged cart tract with neighboring Survey Number. The said order is under challenge in this civil revision petition.
9. Hearing upon rival submissions and perusal of records, it is seen that it is the case of the revision petitioners that the suit cart track is a public path way used by the villagers. In such circumstances the revision petitioners cannot have any bonafide objection for inspection by the Advocate commissioner. The Learned Trial Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the commissioner report on inspection of suit property will minimize oral evidence. It is further held that the commissioner report will enable it to arrive at just and proper decision.
10. It is needless to say that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner will in no way prejudice interest of the revision petitioners.
11. In the result:
(a) The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order passed in I.A.No.416 of 2011 in O.S.No.98 of 2011, dated 06.08.2011, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode;
(b) The trial Court is directed to pass suitable orders directing the Advocate Commissioner to inspect and note down the physical features of the suit schedule of property and file a report within a period of one month, on filing the report, the trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.03.2017 vs Note:Issue order copy on 18.02.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes To The Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs Pre-Delivery order made in CRP(PD)No.5161 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 27.03.2017