V PALANISAMY Vs. SHANMUGHA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set-aside the order dated 29.10.2008 in C.R.P. No,3531 of 2008. The petitioner/first respondent has filed this Miscellaneous Petition praying this Court to set aside the order dated 29.10.2008 passed in C.R.P.(P.D) No. 3531 of 2008 in allowing the civil revision petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has figured as first respondent in C.R.P.(P.D) No. 3531 of 2008 and has filed a suit as plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance pertaining to the property covered in the purported agreement entered into by him with the respondents No,3 and 4 before the learned Additional and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore) and that the petitioner herein has taken a specific plea that the property mentioned in the alleged agreement is not in existence on ground and that in I.A. No.198 of 2008 in O.S. No,840 of 2004 filed by him praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and to identify the property with a help of a surveyor has been allowed by the trial Court and further that he filed a Caveat petition No,3761 on the file of this Court on 10.09.2008 and a copy of the acknowledgment for receipt of the Caveat petition on 15.09.2008 by the first respondent has been submitted for perusal and the first respondent ought to have asked his counsel at Chennai to furnish a copy of the type set of papers to his Advocate for the purpose of filing necessary counter to substantiate his case and moreover this Court has passed final order in the civil revision petition on 29.10.2008 without proper notice being served either to the petitioner counsel at Chennai or to the petitioner or to the counsel on record of the trial Court at Coimbatore, and inasmuch as the first respondent has obtained the final order in the civil revision petition behind his back has committed and played a fraud on the Court and also on the opposite party and therefore the order passed by this Court in the civil revision petition needs to be set aside in the interest of justice.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the first respondent (civil revision petition) submits that this Court has allowed the main C.R.P.(P.D) No. 3531 of 2008 without costs on 29.10.2008 holding that "the order passed by the trial Court in allowing I.A. No.198 of 2008 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not sustainable in the eye of law and that certainly the I.A.No.198 of 2008 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is a luxurious one and accordingly set aside the order of trial Court passed in I.A. No.198 of 2008 in O.S. No,840 of 2004 dated 01.08.2008 and therefore this Court need not set aside the order passed in the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.