1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM REVIEW APPLICATION No.36 of 2011 in CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.705 of 2010 M.Vellaithai ..Petitioner/1st Respondent Vs. 1.L.Arulandamary 2.B.Indirani 3.The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, Dindigul. ..Respondents/Petitioners and Respondents 2&3 Review Application has been filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 01.04.2010 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.705 of 2010 to revise the order dated 22.1.2009 passed in I.A.No.102 of 2007 in A.S.No.90 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Sethupathy For Respondent : Mr.S.Harihara Ramachandran No.1 For Respondents: No appearance 2 and 3 O R D E R This Review Application has been filed so as to review the order passed in Civil Revision Petition No.705 of 2010. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has challenged the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.102 of 2007 in Appeal Suit No.90 of 2006 by the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul by way of filing Civil Revision Petition No.705 of 2010 and at the time of admission, this Court has set aside the order passed in Interlocutory application No.102 of 2007 in Appeal Suit No.90 of 2006 and remitted the petition with a specific direction to hear Appeal Suit No.90 of 2006 and if necessity arises to pass suitable order in Interlocutory Application No.102 of 2007 keeping in view of the fact that already an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he filed his Report and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Plan. In order to review the order passed in Civil Revision Petition No.705 of 2010, the present Review Application has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicant has contended that for the purpose of giving quietus to the parties, appointment of new Advocate Commissioner is very much essential and under the said circumstances, the application in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.102 of 2007 and the first appellate Court has rightly allowed the same, but this Court without considering the nature of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner seeking in Interlocutory Application No.102 of 2007, has erroneously set aside the order and remitted the same to the file of the first appellate Court and therefore the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.705 of 2010 is liable to be reviewed. 4. It is an admitted fact that the review applicant as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.1135 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction. The trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff therein has not proved her title. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Appeal Suit No.90 of 2006 has been preferred on the file of the first appellate Court. During pendency of the same, Interlocutory Application No.102 of 2007 has been filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner afresh. The first appellate Court even without considering the Plan and Report already filed by the Advocate Commissioner, who has been appointed in the trial Court, appointed an Advocate Commissioner afresh. Against the order passed by the first appellate Court, Civil Revision Petition No.705 of 2010 has been field and this Court after considering the fact that in the trial Court itself an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he filed his Report and Plan, has set aside the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.102 of 2007 and remitted the same with a specific direction to the first appellate Court that Interlocutory Application No.102 of 2007 can be considered, if necessity arises and also the first appellate Court is directed to keep in view of the fact that already an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed. 5. Considering the fact that in the present case already an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed in the trial Court itself and he filed his Report and Plan and also considering that this Court has specifically directed the first appellate Court to consider the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.102 of 2007 if necessity arises at the time of hearing Appeal Suit No.90 of 2006, no error has been committed on the face of the record and therefore the present Review Application is not factually and legally maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. In fine, this Review Application deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed without costs. However the first appellate Court is directed to give effect to the order passed in Civil Revision Petition No.705 of 2010. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Additional Subordinate Judge , Dindigul. +One CC to Mr.S.Harihara Ramachandran, Advocate, SR.No.24000 smn rl/3c – 28.7.2011 REVIEW APPLICATION No.36 of 2011 in CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.705 of 2010 20.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/