Effect of ia petition which was allowed

1. The subsequent IA filed by the respondent/defendant was dismissed for default, whereas the court has not decided the original IA if so, the petitioner of the original IA has to pursue it and conduct it properly.

Until the court has not passed any order in it, the status of that IA will be considered as pending.

2. The counter objection raised by respondent in first IA only will be taken for consideration for deciding the original IA and not the pleadings made in the subsequent IA.

Sir,

Whether the Commission report given in the First IA is valid now.

And whether the pleadings once admitted in the second IA which was dismissed for default will be accepted in 

again in the appeal in favour of the defendent who filed second IA to defeat the first commission report

You have stated to have filed IA in First appellete court for appointment of local commissioner, is it maintainable in an appeal ? I do not find it maintainable.

Subsequently when LC report is stated to have been submitted and taken on record by the Court and the LC has been examined (chief as well as cross) where is the question of its (report) validity or otherwise ?

The facts posted are not clear.

Sir,

LC was not examinined for chief as well as cross so far.  But he submitted his report. Then posted for arguments. At that time Respondent filed  IA to scrap Report of LC . Then appointed new commissioner asking Repondent to pay commissioner fees,failing which the IA was dismissed.Now the first report of  first LC is maintainable, sir

The posting is too vague, confused and disjointed -

"The plaintiff  filed IA petition No 25/2012  to appoint commissioner in the First Appellate court and the plaintiff paid Commissioner fees" - Is the plaintiff the appellant?

"Then  The respondent filed another IA  No.  07/2018  to scrab  the commission report  and it was allowed and appointed new commissioner and  asked the petitioner/respondent  to  pay commissioner fees  which was  appealed  in HC by CRP which was also dismissed in favour of defendant" - Why an IA after such a long period?  Who had sought the appointment of the new Commissioner - the appellant or the respondent?  Who had filed the CRP - the appellant or the respondant? How there could be a defendant in an appeal/CRP? What were the reliefs sought in the CRP? What, exactly, were the directions in the CRP?

"The respondent failed to pay the commissioner fees and the IA petition No 07/2018  to scrab the Commission report filed by the Respondent was dismissed for default." How could the reliefs granted in IA to scrap the Commission Report can have any nexus to the apppintment of a new Commissioner and payment of fees by the Petitioner in the said IA? 

What is the Appeal No.? Which Court?

What is the CRP Number? Which High Court?


 

Sir,

Please see my above query and the questions dated 24.10.23 given by Advocate  Mr. P.Venu Sir, 

My reply is:

The Appellant in first appeal is the plaintiff.  No commission was sought for in the trial court where plaintiff suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession dismissed. In the first Appeal court,IA for appointing commission report was allowd and the Commissioner submitted his report.  

The defendant/ respondent filed after 3 years IA to scrab the  Commission report and requested for re-commission. The ground is Commissioner did not measure the land with the defendant side document whereas the defendant did not file any deeds except one patta given under the UDR scheme. However, The IA was allowed to supersede the commissioner's report with a direction to the petitioner/defendant to pay the Commissioner's remuneration and appointing a new Commissioner in the IA itself.  The CRP preferred by the plaintiff/appellant was also dismissed by Madurai HC -Copy attached herewith. The relief sought in the CRP is the first Commission report is genuine and need not be superseded by another Commission after a long period. The order in CRP is to measure the land with the sale deeds of the defendants as well as the plaintiff.

The Advocate is sound to get the commission report superseded with false facts. However, he could not dare to face the new commission on the same grounds. So the respondent filed a memo to change the Commissioner appointed in the IA, it was allowed and the Commissioner was changed. After that, the defendant did not pay the remuneration. The IA that the defendant filed to scrab the Commissioner's report was dismissed for default.  More than 5 months lapsed. No restoration petition was filed.  Now My advocate is of the view that the Commission report once crabbed is scrabbed. It is of no value and not maintainable. 

Appeal No. is 100018/2017 IN TIRUCHENDUR SUB COURT.

CRP no.is  CRP(PD)(MD) No.2342 of 2017

I am thankful to the Advocate Sir,  for the effort taken after a long time of my query. 

In spite od the best efforts, I am unable to comprehend certain aspects. It is seen from the CRP 2342 of 2017 that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed OS No. 195 of 2004. On the dismissal of the suit she had filed AS No. 157 of 2007. IA No. 7 of 2007 had been filed in the said AS No. 157 of 2007. It is not understood how this AS 157/2007 has been renumbered as AS 18/2017. It is seen that the said IA No. 7/2017 has been disposed since the Appeal Suit has been renumbered as AS 18/2017. 

Admittedly the order in IA 7/2017 has rejected the Commission Report in IA 309/2011 in AS 157/2007 and this Order has been upheld by the High Court. What exactly has been the Order of the Cubcourt in IA 7/2017? Was the appointment of the new Commissioner part of the same Order or the Order in a different IA?

It is also seen from the e-Court that a petition under Order 23 has been filed in the Appellate Court. Is the matter being settled through conciliation?