1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.104 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Pitchaimani .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Ivanpal 2.Rani Ivanpal 3.Pattukottai Municipality rep. by its Commissioner, Kasangulam, Thenkarai, Pattukottai Town and Taluk, Tanjore District. .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 29.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.569 of 2010 in Original Suit No.45 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Pugalendhi ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 29.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.569 of 2010 in Original Suit No.45 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.45 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the relief of permanent injunction. During pendency of the same, the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs as petitioners have filed Interlocutory Application No.155 of 2010 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and accordingly an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he inspected the suit property and filed his interim report and subsequently the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs as petitioners have filed the petition in question in Interlocutory Application No.569 of 2010 so as to direct the Advocate Commissioner to correlate the suit Survey Numbers with reference to new Survey Nos.82/12 and 82/13. The Court below has allowed the petition. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and under the said circumstances, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission on the basis of the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner. 4. It is an admitted fact that the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs as petitioners have instituted Original Suit No.45 of 2010 on the file of the Court below with regard to Survey Nos.82/1A and 82/1B. In Interlocutory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Application No.155 of 2010, an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he filed his interim report stating that he has not been able to identify the suit properties. The present petition has been filed so as to direct the Advocate Commissioner to correlate the suit Survey Numbers with the new Survey Nos.82/12 and 82/13. The Court below has allowed the petition in question. 5. The only contention raised on the side of the revision petitioner is that without amending the plaint properly so as to include the alleged new Suvey Nos.82/12 and 82/13, the present petition has been filed and the Court below without considering the irregularities done on the part of the respondents 1 and 2/ petitioners/plaintiffs has simply allowed the petition in question filed in Interlocutory Application No.569 of 2010 and under the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 6. As rightly pointed out on the side of the revision petitioner, Original Suit No.45 of 2010 has been instituted only in respect of Survey Nos.82/1A and 82/1B. In the petition in question, it has been mentioned that the original Survey Numbers have subsequently been sub-divided as Survey Nos.82/12 and 82/13. But the alleged sub-division numbers have not been included in the plaint. The proper method is to include the alleged new survey Numbers in the plaint and then only the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners/ plaintiffs are entitled to proceed further. But without amending the plaint suitably, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.569 of 2010 so as to direct the Advocate Commissioner to correlate the suit Survey Numbers with the new Survey Numbers. The Court below without considering the aforesaid lapses on the part of the respondents 1 and 2/ petitioners/plaintiffs has erroneously allowed the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.569 of 2010. Under the said circumstances, the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.569 of 2010 in Original Suit No.45 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.569 of 2010 in Original Suit No.45 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.569 of 2010 in Original Suit No.45 of 2010 is dismissed without costs and the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners/ plaintiffs are directed to amend the plaint suitably and after making amendment, they are entitled to proceed further. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The District Munsif Court, Pattukottai. smn C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.104 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 TR : 28.01.2011 : 2P/2C 21.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/