SELVI Vs. DORATHY PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition, being aggrieved, as against the order dated 07.12.2010 in I.A.No.751 of 2010 in O.S.No.282 of 2007 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee.

(2.) THE Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, while passing the impugned order in I.A.No.751 of 2010 in O.S.No.282 of 2007, on 07.12.2010, has, among other things, observed that '.. The taluk surveyor has given his report that S.No.7 was subdivided into 56A, B, D, D, and E. The S.No.56/A stands in the name of respondent's vendor Jayaram Naidu. The FMB sketch and Adangal shows the alleged sub division. From the pleads and materials available on records it is understood that the suit property was identified to be situated in S.No.7/56 and not in S.No.7/7. Even then it is unknown whether there is an existence of land in S.No.7/7/ or not?. If S.No.7 was sub divided as 56 A, B, C, D and E, what is the position of S.No.7/7. In S.No.7 whether the S.No.7/7 is part and parcel, what S.No.7/7 is in existence are all now the question that arises in the mind of this Court. Like S.No.7 was identified as S.No.56 A, B, C, D and E. It is essential to identify S.No.7/7 and it's existence that was enumerated in the the petitioner's deed. Unless this was elucidated to this court there would be no proper rendition of justice. The dispute involved between the litigants will not be solved. In the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, the Advocate Commissioner's warrant has been remitted back to the same Advocate Commissioner to find out the S.No.7/7 in the suit village' and resultantly, allowed the application giving liberty to the Advocate Commissioner to avail the help of Taluk Surveyor and fixed the Commissioner's remuneration at Rs.1,750/-.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant contends that the Advocate Commissioner filed his report with the help of Surveyor's Plan in earlier I.A.No.1320 of 2007 [filed by the Petitioner/ /Defendant] and in the second I.A.No.751 of 2010, an endeavour has been made to remit back the Commissioner's warrant to undo the earlier report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. As such, the second I.A.No.751 of 2010 is an abuse and misuse of process of the Court.