KALAMANI Vs. EZHILARASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 9.4.2009, made in I.A.No.1183 of 2008, in O.S.No.106 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed the suit, in O.S.No.106 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam, for the relief of permanent injunction. THE petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1183 of 2008, in O.S.No.106 of 2003, under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to re-issue the warrant to the same Commissioner, who had inspected the suit property, earlier.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the learned District Munsif, Jayankondam, had failed to see that the petitioner had filed objections to the commissioner-s report, immediately, on the filing of the said report. THE report of the Commissioner had been filed, on 10.7.2003, and the objections were filed, on 16.7.2003. However, the learned District Munsif had not considered the objections raised by the petitioner. While so, the second defendant had expired, in the year, 2003 and the legal heirs had been impleaded, in the year, 2008. THErefore, the petitioner had preferred the interlocutory application for reissuing the warrant to the same Advocate Commissioner to examine the issues raised in the objections filed by the petitioner, even before the suit was posted for trial. THErefore, it cannot be said that the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner is belated and that it had been filed only with the intention of dragging on the proceedings in the suit.