EXECUTIVE OFFICER AYYALUR TOWN PANCHAYAT Vs. A MAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, in OS.No.134/2000, on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The respondents/plaintiffs filed an application in IA.No.389/2000 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and value the suit property, with the help of a Chartered Engineer and to file a report, with regard to the value of the buildings demolished and left undemolished in the suit property and the same was allowed by the court below, by order dated 5.9.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition.

(3.) The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they and 40 others put up constructions, in the suit property about 50 years ago and they have been enjoying the same. The defendant, without following any procedure, started to demolish the buildings in the suit property and only in the said circumstances, the suit was filed. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in IA.No.266/2000 and he had inspected the suit property on 5.7.2000 and also filed his report on 15.7.2000. In the application in IA.No.265/2000 filed by the plaintiff for the grant of injunction, an enquiry has been held and it was posted on 25.7.2000 for orders. In the meanwhile, on 19.7.2000, the defendant measured the suit property and fixed the boundaries and also started to demolish the constructions. On coming to know of the same, the plaintiffs filed an application in IA.No.332/2000 to pass an order in IA.No.265/2000 and the court passed an order to main status-quo, till order is being pronounced in IA.No.265/2000. The said fact was informed to the defendant. But, however, the defendant by 4.00 p.m. started to demolish the buildings on 19.7.2000 itself and when the order passed by the court below was shown to them, they have failed to take into consideration the said order. The defendant also continued the demolition work on 20.7.2000 and the defendant refused to hand over the articles to the plaintiffs, but, kept the same in a private marriage hall and a report was also lodged to the police. Thereafter, on 22.7.2000, after giving notice, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property and also filed a report on 24.7.2000. The Advocate Commissioner also noted down the buildings demolished and left undemolished in the suit property. But, however, he has not given the value for those buildings. Only in the said circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property, with the help of a Chartered Engineer and to file a report, stating the value of the buildings, demolished and left undemolished.