RAMALINGAM Vs. KANCHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner/Defendant has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 2.12.2010 in I.A. No.514 of 2009 in O.S. No.63 of 2008 passed by the learned District Munsif, Udhagamandalam.

(2.) THE Learned District Munsif, while passing the orders in I.A. No.514 of 2009 in O.S. No.63 of 2008 on 2.12.2010 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant (as Petitioner), has among other things, observed that 'this Court is of the opinion that when this suit stands in a part heard stage, at this juncture, this application has only been filed in order to protract the proceedings as long as possible and this Court is also of the view that the present dispute can be established by the petitioner with oral and documentary evidences etc.' and consequently, dismissed the application without costs.

(3.) FROM the counter filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff in I.A. No.514 of 2009 in O.S. No.63 of 2008, it comes to be known that the Revision Petitioner/Defendant, as Plaintiff, has already filed a suit in O.S. No.161 of 1995 on the file of the trial Court praying for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property mentioned therein and the said suit, after full contest, came to be dismissed. As such, the application in I.A. No.514 of 2009 in O.S. No.63 of 2008 filed by the Revision Petitioner Petitioner/Defendant, as Petitioner, before the trial Court, praying for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner, is barred in law.