The controversy involved in the petition is very narrow. The respondent before this Court would say that the logs of the tree which are alleged to have been cut are lying in his property and he had no claim except that they may have to be removed since it causes inconvenience and it interferes with his right to cultivate in the property. It is under these circumstances, according to the respondent, he has constrained to move an application before the lower court which passed the impugned order namely, Ext.P3. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes objection to the order on the ground that the order will make the suit infructuous.
3. The grievance of the petitioner has no basis. All that the respondent seeks is that the logs which are lying in his property may be removed by the petitioner herein so that he can utilise his property. If there is any apprehension regarding the O.P.(C) No.1571/2014 2 value of the logs and the place where the logs are lying, it can be resolved by appointing a Commissioner.
In the result, the impugned order is sustained with the modification that a Commissioner shall be appointed by the court below to ascertain the value of the logs and also the place where the logs are lying and if it is found that the logs are lying in the property of the respondent, the same shall be removed within a period of ten days from the date of assessment of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall visit the property within a period of two weeks from today.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp