1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:17.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.1077 of 2011 & M.P(MD) No.1 of 2011 Kalimuthu .. Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/ Respondent/First Defendant Vs. M.Karuppiah .. Respondent/Respondent/ Petitioner/Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.22 of 2011 in I.A.No.493 of 2010 in O.S.No.156 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif -cum- learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi dated 04.02.2011. For Petitioner : M/s.S.M.S.Johnny Basha ORDER The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant to restore the I.A.No.493 of 2010 filed by the parties for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to examine the respondent/plaintiff. 2. Heard Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. The suit has been filed for partition. In the said suit I.A.No.493 of 2010 was filed to examine the respondent/plaintiff by appointment of Advocate Commissioner. In the said application, the petitioner did not file any counter and therefore, on 06.01.2011, the petition was allowed as ex-parte. To set aside the said order dated 06.01.2011, the petitioner preferred I.A.No.22 of 2011 and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondent/plaintiff stated that he was not feeling well, there was no evidence available for the same. She would submit the petitioner along with the petition filed counter to the petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. However, the trial Court dismissed the same erroneously. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. It is seen that the suit is for partition. Though the respondent filed application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, for the purpose of examining the plaintiff, counter was not filed by the petitioner. Examination of witnesses on commission, is permissible under Code of Civil Procedure. Though notice was given and in spite of opportunity, the petitioner did not file counter in time and therefore, the trial Court allowed the petition. 6. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the plaintiff is examined on commission. What is being done before the Court, will be done done before the Commissioner and the petitioner will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner would be prejudiced. 7. In view of that, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. +1 CC to Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, Advocate (SR.No.18977) C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1077 of 2011 17.06.2011 gsr NSV/30.6.11/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/