M EASWARI Vs. VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved against the order dated 12.3.2008 in I.A.No.135 of 2008 in O.S.No.279 of 2004 passed by the District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.

(2.) THE main grievance of the revision petitioner/petitioner/ plaintiff is that the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.464 of 2004 under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC praying for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner and that the Commissioner has inspected the property on two occasions and measured the extent but since the Commissioner has not filed report as well as plan, the trial Court has dismissed the said application on 7.12.2007 and directed the Commissioner to return the warrant and the fact remains that the Commissioner has not filed his report in the matter in issue and therefore prays for allowing the revision petition. It is to be stated that the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.135 of 2008 to restore I.A.No.464 of 2004 which has been dismissed by the Court below on 7.12.2007.

(3.) EVEN though the revision petitioner's approach is lackadaisical in the present case, without going into the merits of the matter, inasmuch as the processual justice must be employed in aid of deliverance of substantial justice overriding the technical considerations and since the Commissioner's report only remains to be filed in the matter, this Court allows this revision petition so that Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so to prevent aberration of justice, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.