1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2444 of2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Saravanan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Murugesan 2. Chellapandi (For themselves and in their capacity as representatives of public of Kelavellakkulathupatty) .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 07.03.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.941 of 2009 in Original Suit No.38 of 2009 by the District Munsif Court, Manaparai. For Petitioner : M/s.J.Maria Roseline ORDER The order dated 07.03.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.941 of 2009 in Original Suit No.38 of 2009 by the District Munsif Court, Manaparai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.38 of 2009 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. During pendency of the same, in Interlocutory Application No.87 of 2009, an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed for the purpose mentioned therein and he inspected the suit property and its adjoining properties and filed his report and plan and in order to strike off the same, this petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.941 of 2009 by the defendant as petitioner. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/ defendant as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.941 of 2009 and also considering the nature of grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.38 of 2009 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction. It is also equally an admitted fact that an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed as per order passed in Interlocutory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Application No.87 of 2009. The Advocate Commissioner after making his visit, has filed his report and plan. 5. The only grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner is that prior to inspection of the Advocate Commissioner, no notice has been issued to the revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant and therefore the entire Commissioner's report and plan are liable to be struck down. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has also putforth the very same contentions urged in Interlocutory Application No.941 of 2009. 7. It is seen from the Commissioner's report that the Commissioner made his visit only after giving due notice to the counsel of the petitioner and respondent. Considering the fact that in the Commissioner's report it has been specifically stated that prior to inspection, the Commissioner has given due notice to the counsel of the petitioner as well as respondent. The grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. If really, the Advocate Commissioner has failed to note down certain material aspects, the revision petitioner can very well take steps so as to re-issue the commission warrant and the revision petitioner has not taken any steps. 8. Considering the fact that prior to inspection, the Commissioner has given due notice to the counsel of the petitioner and respondents, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for in the present petition cannot be granted and at the most, the revision petitioner is having liberty to take steps so as to re-issue the commission warrant to the same Commissioner. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of. 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.941 of 2009 in Original Suit No.38 of 2009 by the District Munsif Court, Manaparai is confirmed. However the revision petitioner is at liberty to take proper steps so as to re-issue the commission warrant to the same Commissioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Manapparai. +1 CC to M/s.J.Maria Roseline, Advocate (SR.No.45419) C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2444 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 smn 22.12.2011 NSV/9.1.12/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/