1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (NPD)(MD) No.2241 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Suja Bai .. Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. Suseela Bai .. Respondent/Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 30.08.2011 passed in Execution Application No.288 of 2006 in Execution Petition No.119 of 2006 in Original Suit No.327 of 2001 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.J.John Jayakumar ORDER The order dated 30.08.2011 passed in Execution Application No.288 of 2006 in Execution Petition No.119 of 2006 in Original Suit No.327 of 2001 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.327 of 2001 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration of title and possession and injunction, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant. In Original Suit No.327 of 2001, an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.119 of 2006. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Execution Application No.288 of 2006 so as to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of fixing demarcation on the basis of measurements given in Ex.B.2. The Court below has allowed the petition and erroneously directed the Commissioner to fix demarcation on the basis of the second plan filed by the earlier Commissioner. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Execution Application No.288 of 2006 and the order passed therein by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondent and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that against the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.327 of 2001, an appeal suit has been preferred by the defendant therein as appellant and the same has been dismissed and as against the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the defendant as appellant has filed Second Appeal No.931 of 2007 on the file of this Court, wherein this Court has directed to fix boundaries on the basis of measurements given in Ex.B.2 and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed, but the Court below has erroneously https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 directed the Advocate Commissioner to fix demarcation on the basis of the second plan filed by the earlier Commissioner and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be modified. 5. It is seen from the records that against the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, Second Appeal No.931 of 2007 has been filed on the file of this Court, wherein this Court has directed to fix demarcation on the basis of Ex.B.2. Only on the basis of the decree passed by this Court, in Execution Application No.288 of 2006, it has been specifically prayed to direct the Advocate Commissioner to fix demarcation on the basis of Ex.B.2. The Court below has not at all considered the order passed by this court in Second Appeal No.931 of 2007. But the Court below has erroneously directed the Advocate Commissioner to fix demarcation on the basis of the second plan filed by the earlier Commissioner and the direction given by the Court below is totally against the direction given by this Court in Second Appeal No.931 of 2007 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be modified. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the Advocate Commissioner appointed in Execution Application No.288 of 2006 is directed to fix demarcation on the basis of Ex.B.2 as per the decree passed in Second Appeal No.931 of 2007. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram. Smn SR : 07.12.2011 : 2p/2c C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2241 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 28.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/