J DAVID Vs. J SOLOMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2003 and made in I.A.No.56 of 2000 in O.S.No.139 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur.

(2.) Today when the above civil revision petition was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, with no representation made on the part of the petitioner, this Court is left with no choice but to pass this order hearing only the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and having regard to the materials placed on record in which event this Court is able to assess that the interlocutory application filed in I.A.No.56 of 2000 in the regular suit O.S.No.139 of 2001 pending on the file of Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur which is the subject of dispute has been filed before the lower Court with the prayer for the appointment of a Commission in the final decree petition at the final decree stage which is vehemently opposed by the other side resulting in the interlocutory application being dismissed by the trial Court, testifying the validity of which, the plaintiff has come forward to file the above civil revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would point out that one of the items shown as Item 6-A in the list of suit schedule properties in the final decree petition, do not form part of the preliminary decree at all and, therefore, anything done much less the appointment of a Commission for the division of the properties, based on such a defective schedule of properties, will only result in failure of justice and, therefore, at no stretch of imagination such an application could be allowed and the dismissal by the trial Court has been done rightly.