1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.231 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 1.V.Chandrasekaran 2.C.Sudha .. Petitioners/Plaintiffs Vs. 1.T.V.P.Bamaraja 2.V.Karthikeyan .. Respondents/Defendants Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1075 of 2010 in Original Suit No.118 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk at Madurai. For Petitioners : Mr.T.K.Balasubramanian ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 18.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1075 of 2010 in Original Suit No.118 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk at Madurai. 2. The revision petitioners herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.118 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the revision petitioners as petitioners have filed Interlocutory Application No.1075 of 2010 on the file of the Court below under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose mentioned therein. The Court below after considering the rival contentions raised on either side has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for Original Suit No.118 of 2010 and also considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1075 of 2010, notice need not be sent to the respondents and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that Original Suit No.118 of 2010 has been filed by the revision petitioners as plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein the respondents have been shown as defendants and on the side of the respondents/defendants a detailed written statement has been filed, wherein they disputed the measurement given to the suit properties and under the said circumstances for the purpose of measuring the suit properties, the present petition has been filed and the Court below has dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioners, the Court has to look into the nature of the relief sought for in the plaint and also the description of properties given therein as well as the necessary averments made in the written statement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. It is an admitted fact that the present suit has been instituted for the relief of permanent injunction. In the present suit, two schedules of properties have been shown as suit properties. The first schedule is situate in Survey No.113/3 and clear four boundaries have been given. With regard to first schedule, proper measurements have been given and likewise the suit second schedule is also situate in Survey No.113/3 and clear four boundaries have been given and further clear measurements have also been given to the suit second schedule. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has advanced his argument only on the basis of necessary averments made in the written statement. In paragraph No.5 of the written statement, it has been simply stated that a sub-division has takenplace with regard to suit survey numbers. Considering the fact that proper survey numbers as well as measurements and also clear four boundaries have been given to the suit properties and also considering that the revision petitioners have claimed right to the suit properties by virtue of the sale deed dated 18.12.2006 and also considering that the present suit has been instituted for the relief of permanent injunction, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit properties is totally unwarranted. 8. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1075 of 2010 in Original Suit No.118 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk at Madurai is confirmed. However the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk at Madurai is directed to dispose of Original Suit No.118 of 2010 before the end of June, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Madurai Taluk at Madurai. Copy to : The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ( for watch if any) SR : 22.02.2011 : 2p/3c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.231 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 08.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/