Case Note & Summary
The case involves three civil revision petitions filed by the plaintiffs, Vadivel and Chidambaram, against the order dated November 10, 2022 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Perambalur, in I.A. Nos.7, 9 and 10 of 2022 in O.S. No.513 of 1998. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction in respect of certain agricultural lands. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed applications for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and for interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The trial court dismissed all three applications, leading to the present revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, set aside the impugned orders and allowed the applications. The court observed that the trial court had not properly appreciated the pleadings and the necessity for appointment of a Commissioner to identify the property and assess possession. It also held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for injunction as they were in possession and the defendants attempted to dispossess them. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs and irreparable injury would be caused if injunction was not granted. The court directed the trial court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and to grant interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs pending disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appointment of Advocate Commissioner - Order 26 Rule 9 CPC - The court held that an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to ascertain the identity and extent of suit property, especially when there is a dispute regarding boundaries and possession. The trial court's dismissal of the application without considering the necessity was set aside. (Paras 5-10) B) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for injunction as they were in possession of the suit property and the defendants attempted to dispossess them. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs and irreparable injury would be caused if injunction was not granted. (Paras 11-15) C) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - The court held that the trial court ought to have exercised its inherent powers to do justice and prevent abuse of process, especially when the suit was pending for a long time and the applications were filed to facilitate a fair trial. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' applications for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and for interim injunction without properly considering the pleadings and evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders dated November 10, 2022, and directed the trial court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and to grant interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs pending disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Order 26 Rule 9 CPC
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Appointment of Advocate Commissioner
- Interim Injunction
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Injury
