ARUMUGHAM Vs. PECHAMMAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2019 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Vridhachalam in A.S.No.54 of 2018, by which the judgment and the decree dated 06.11.2017 in O.S.No.67 of 2010 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Neyveli was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Sub Court, Neyveli for fresh consideration.

(2.) It is seen that the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Vridhachalam, while remanding the matter, had directed the Subordinate Judge, Neyveli to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and ascertain the actual owner of the property. Consequent to the direction, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has also filed his report before the Subordinate Court, Neyveli on 30.09.2019 and an affidavit dated 18.12.2019 has been filed before this Court to that effect by the Advocate Commissioner.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that civil matters are pending for years together without any quietus during the lifetime of parties and the Lower Appellate Court Judge, instead of remanding the matter to the Subordinate Judge, Neyveli with a direction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property in question, could have himself inspected the place and arrived at a decision in the light of Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC, which provides for the legal leniency to the Court to personally inspect the property or thing in question and prepare a memorandum of such inspection, which can then be taken upon the records of the case matter.