A. JOHNSON Vs. R. KATHIRIN RUMINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dtd. 3/12/2009, passed in I.A. No. 317 of 2009 in O.S. No. 194 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur.

(2.) The revision petitioner has levied the suit against the respondent, in O.S. No. 194 of 2009, for the reliefs of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. It is noted that the respondent is the sister of the revision petitioner. It is further noted that the respondent has levied the suit against the revision petition in O.S. No. 25 of 2009 for the reliefs of declaration and consequential permanent injunction. Both allege that the opponent party had intruded and put up construction in the common area and as well as in their portions and accordingly, had come forward with the lis claiming appropriate reliefs. Considering the pleas putforth by the respective parties as well as the materials placed on record, it is found that the subject matter involved in both the suits are found to be more or less one and the same. It is noted that the respondent has preferred the application in I.A. No. 35 of 2009 for the appointment of commissioner in her suit and pursuant to the orders passed by the Court, the Commissioner had inspected the property in the presence of both the parties and filed his report and plan. While so, contending that the respondent had prevented the petitioner from putting up the construction in his property and thereby, she has put up a motor room, the petitioner has come forward with an application for the appointment of Commissioner to inspect the property with the help of the Surveyor and file his report and plan. The abovesaid application of the petitioner had come to be resisted by the respondent contending that inasmuch as in the suit laid by the respondent, the Commissioner had already inspected the property and filed his report and plan in the presence of both the parties, there is no need for the appointment of another Commissioner to inspect the disputed property and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the Commission application.

(3.) The Court below accepted the defence putforth by the respondent and thereby, dismissed the petitioner's application. Aggrieved over the same, he has preferred the civil revision petition.