PRESIDENT BIKSHANDARKOVIL PANCHAYAT Vs. S NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair order and decreetal order, dated 31.08.2016, passed in I.A.No.346 of 2016 in I.A.No.449 of 2005 in O.S.No.92 of 2002, by the learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi.

(2.) The petitioner is the 10th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2002, on the file of the Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi. The first respondent is the plaintiff. Originally, the first respondent filed the suit against the respondents 2 to 6 and one Natarajan. After filing of the suit, the said Natarajan died and therefore, he was exonerated. Pending suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.449 of 2005 and the Commissioner also filed his report and plan. The suit was decreed on 31.07.2009 and the respondents 2 to 5 filed A.S.No.175 of 2009 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy. The said appeal was dismissed on 16.03.2011. Hence, the respondents 2 to 5 filed S.A.(MD)No.937 of 2011 before this Court and this Court by judgment and decree, dated 05.07.2013, remanded the suit to the Trial Court with a direction to the first respondent to examine both the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Surveyor, who are authors of Exs.C.1 to C.3 and has also given liberty to the respondents 2 to 6 to adduce additional evidence if any. Against the said judgment and decree, dated 05.07.2013 made in S.A.(MD)No.937 of 2011, the first respondent filed S.L.P.(Civil)No.32844 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court on 03.07.2014, while disposing of the S.L.P. directed the first respondent to implead the concerned local authorities and the State as defendants in the suit. Hence, the first respondent impleaded the petitioner and the respondents 8 to 10 as defendants in the suit. They filed written statement in the suit. Subsequently, the Surveyor was examined as P.W.2. The Advocate Commissioner died and therefore, he was not examined. P.W.1 was recalled and cross-examined by the respondents 8 to 10. When the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.345 and 346 of 2016 seeking permission to file objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report and to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and file his report, respectively. According to the petitioner, there is a contradiction between the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor. The Advocate Commissioner has not noted down the physical features of the suit property correctly. The first respondent opposed the same on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2002 and the alleged superstructure and other physical features are subsequent to the filing of the suit and subsequent to the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner.

(3.) The learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, after considering the materials on record, allowed I.A.No.345 of 2016 filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file objection to the report of the Advocate Commissioner and his objection was taken on file. The learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate dismissed I.A.No.346 of 2016 filed seeking permission to appoint fresh Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property.