AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—The fourth defendant in the suit is the petitioner. The suit was filed by the first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition for
declaration of title to the suit property. Pending the suit, a Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the suit property on 16.04.1994 and
submitted a report. The suit was thereafter decreed in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an
appeal in A.S.No.33 of 2001 before the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. Pending appeal, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.21 of 2002, seeking for
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to find out the actual extent of the land, which was the subject matter of the suit. The said application
was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, by order dated 27.03.2002. It is against this order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been
filed.
Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a fresh cause of action arose after the report of the first
Commissioner and an application for seeking for appointment of second Commissioner was filed on the basis of fresh cause of action. The learned
counsel further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if a Commissioner is appointed and the actual extent of land is
ascertained by the said Commissioner.
Mr. R. Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the application is only to prolong the suit
and when the earlier Commissioner submitted his report, the same was not objected. Hence, the application for appointment of another
Commissioner, when the appeal is pending, is only to protract the litigation. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Civil Revision Petition
is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions.
When the suit was pending, a Commissioner was appointed to find out the physical features of the property. It is true that the boundaries given
in respect of the schedule mentioned property are to an extent of 50 cents. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the total extent of the
property was mentioned as 50 cents, after the Commissioner''s Report was filed, Ex.A-11, rent receipt issued by the landlord to the plaintiff, was
filed and in the said receipt an extent of 20 cents is only mentioned. There is a discrepancy as to the extent of land. The said variation, in regard to
the extent of land, came to the notice of the civil revision petitioner, only when the rent receipt Ex.A-11 was filed. It is to be seen that it is also the
case of the respondents that the reference as to the total extent of land as 20 cents is a mistake. Whether it is a mistake or not is a matter to be
gone into by the Court below. However, in order to render substantial and complete justice, it would have been proper for the lower appellate
Court to get a report from another Advocate Commissioner as to the total extent of land. The lower appellate Court dismissed the application for
appointment of Advocate Commissioner on the ground that when the boundaries are correctly given, the extent of the land is irrelevant. The said
finding of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained, more particularly, when it is an admitted case that there is a discrepancy in the total extent
of the land. Moreover, the cause for second application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner did not exist when the first Commissioner
was appointed. After submitting the report, a fresh cause can be a subject matter for further inspection by another Commissioner. By such
appointment, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. The apprehension of the respondents is that by filing the application, the civil
revision petitioner is attempting to drag on the proceedings. Of course, such an apprehension cannot be ruled out. However, that alone cannot be a
ground for rejecting the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on fresh cause of action and the said fact has been overlooked
by the learned Subordinate Judge.
In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the application of the petitioner made in I.A.No.21 of 2002 is allowed. The lower
appellate Court is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with a further
direction to the Advocate Commissioner to inspect and report within a further period of 15 days. On receipt of the said report, the lower appellate
Court shall dispose of the appeal within a period of one month therefrom. The time prescribed in the C.R.P. shall be strictly adhered to by the
lower appellate Court.
With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.