MANI Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a final decree proceedings. The revision petitioner, who is one of the defendants in the suit, appears to have preferred an appeal before this Court and the same is pending in A.S.SR.No.52181 of 2018. The revision petitioner has challenged the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner mainly on the ground of pendency of Appeal Suit.

(2.) This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by one of the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.82 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul, filed by the respondents 1 and 2, for partition. On 16.02.2016, a preliminary decree was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dindigul. Thereafter, the plaintiffs, who succeeded in the partition suit, filed an application for passing of final decree in I.A.No. 184 of 2018 before the trial Court. In the said I.A., the learned Additional District Judge, Dindigul, has appointed an Advocate Commissioner for division of property in the presence of all parties. Challenging the order of the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in the final decree application, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

(3.) The order of the lower Court is challenged on the main ground that the appeal is pending before this Court as against the preliminary decree. It is submitted that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, during the pendency of the appeal, is not sustainable. This argument has no substance, as it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the caveator that the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before this Court is also dismissed, as the petition filed by the revision petitioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal suit is dismissed.