1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.647 and 648 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 1.Lilly Ammani 2.A.Anandaraj 3.A.Kiruba Ebenezer 4.Lakshmi Raveendran 5.P.Masanam 6.M.Rajeswari 7.R.Mathivanan 8.R.Michael John Sundar 9.R.David Rajesh .. Petitioners in both C.R.Ps Vs. 1.R.Jayaramdoss 2.J.Koresh Miller 3.J.Anand Yovakash 4.The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Through its Executive Authority, The Commissioner, Arignar Anna Maligai, Tallakulam, Madurai. .. Respondents in both C.R.Ps COMMON PRAYER:Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the learned Principal District Munsif,Madurai(in-charge judge for the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town), to dispose of the applications in I.A.Nos.601 and 602 of 2010 in O.S.No.660 of 2010. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu (In both C.R.Ps) For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Visvalingam For R4 : Mr.M.Ravishankar (In Both C.R.Ps COMMON ORDER Though the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 dispose of the injunction application and the application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, the peculiar circumstances of the case warranted appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by this Court to visit the suit property and to file a report with regard to the common pathway belonged to both the petitioners and respondents, alleged to be blocked by the respondents. 2. The petitioners contended that the petitioners and respondents are neighbours and the petitioners have been using the pathway and the same was blocked by the respondents by putting up a gate. Hence the petitioners were compelled to file a suit for declaration that the petitioners are entitled to enjoy the common pathway and for permanent injunction. As no injunction was granted and the matter is being adjourned, the petitioners have come before this Court. 3. Considering the fact that the pathway is allegedly required to be used by seven families, to find out the correct position, this Court felt that appointment of Advocate Commissioner is necessary and his report would throw more light whether ingress and egress into the property is affected. By consent of both parties, Mr.Mohan, the learned Advocate was appointed as Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the property and filed two reports. 4. It is seen that subsequent to the orders of this Court, the gate was removed by the respondents and three feet width pathway which was available made as six feet in the starting and ten feet at the end. The respondents without prejudice to their rights to contest the suit have agreed and left passage to the extent as noted above as an interim measure pending suit. The said pathway is directed to be maintained till the disposal of the suit with the same measurements. The above said arrangements would continue till the disposal of the suit and the same is without prejudice to the rights of both the parties. 5. This Court took into consideration with three feet width passage, it is impossible for the seven families to have free access to their residence. Because of the co-operation of the parties, especially the respondents and the counsel Mr.S.Visvalingam and Mr.D.Thirunavukarasu, the above arrangement was made possible. 6. As the Advocate Commissioner was appointed by this Court and reports were filed by him, there is no necessity for another Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by the trial Court. The report and additional report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, plan and survey sketch will form part of the records of the trial Court. The office is directed to send those records to the trial Court. 7. Considering the fact that the rights in respect of the common pathway is involved, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 31.12.2011 and both the parties are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 directed to co-operate with the trial Court for disposal of the suit. 8. Mr.Mohan, learned Advocate was already paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- as initial remuneration. As he visited the property thrice and filed a report and additional report, he is entitled for additional remuneration of Rs.7500/- which shall be paid on or before 15.06.2011 by the petitioner. 9. With the above observation, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Principal District Munsif,Madurai (in-charge judge for the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town) (With Advocate Commissioner report and additional report, plan and survey sketch of the Advocate Commissioner) 2.Mr.N.Mohan, Advocate Chamber No.37, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai Copy to the Section Officer(VR Section) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai (for sending Advocate Commissioner report and Additional report for the Lower Court) +1cc to M/s.M.Thirunavukkarasu, Advocate Sr.No.17767 pm ssk/23.06.2011 /5c-3p/- C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.647 and 648 of 2011 09.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/