Madras High Court
CRP/2411/2025 of Sakunthala Vs Parvathi Mangai on 15 October 2026
CRP No. 2411 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 2411 of 2025
and CMP No.13883 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA011253402025}
1. Sakunthala
2. Eswaran @ Eswaramoorthy
Petitioner(s)
Vs
Parvathi Mangai
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in IA No. 3 of 2025 in OS No. 408 of 2024 on the file of Special Judge, Special Court for the trial of case under SC/ST (POA
ACT)
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.Tamilavel
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Muthalakan
CRP No. 2411 of 2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in IA No. 3 of 2025 in OS No. 408 of 2024, dated 30.04.2025, on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for the trial of case under SC/ST (POA ACT), wherein the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to submit a report along with a plan, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record and this Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.
4. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.408 of 2024, seeking for the relief of declaration and for possession. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement and they have taken a stand that the property has been developed and a construction has been put up and whereas the plaintiff has conveniently concealed about the said fact and has not properly valued the suit.
CRP No. 2411 of 2025 Hence in order to ascertain the physical features of the suit property, the application was filed so that the report will help the Court to properly assess the actual value of the suit property.
5. The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the said application has been filed only to gather evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present CRP has been filed before this Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the suit is of the year 2017 and the present application came to be filed in the year 2025 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. In any event what is sought to be established by the petitioner is that the suit property has been improved and construction has been put up and the value of the suit property is much more than what is shown in the plaint and the same will be able to be established if the Advocate Commissioner note down the physical features and submit a report.
7. What has been attempted by the petitioner is to make the Advocate Commissioner gather evidence on the physical features of the suit property and thereafter the petitioner wants to take further course of action. This can never be allowed by a Court. If according to the petitioner the property has not been properly valued and proper Court fees has not been paid, the petitioner has to independently establish the same by filing an application under Section 12 of
CRP No. 2411 of 2025 the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The petitioner cannot use the services of the Advocate Commissioner for that purpose and thereafter make the next move. The learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out to Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act submitted that the petitioner will be entitled for all the improvements that have been made in the suit property and therefore the petitioner wanted such improvements that were made in the property to be ascertained by way of the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
8. This submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner will have some meaning if the petitioner is seeking for any counter claim against the plaintiff. It is brought to the notice of this Court that counter claim made by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Therefore even if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed and a report is filed before the Court and it comes to light that improvements have been made in the property, nothing further will come out of the report of the Advocate Commissioner while testing the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession in the absence of any counter claim against the plaintiff. Hence, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. In the result, the order passed by the Court below in IA No. 3 of 2025 in OS No. 408 of 2024, dated 30.04.2025, on the file of the Special Judge,
CRP No. 2411 of 2025 Special Court for the trial of case under SC/ST (POA ACT), is hereby confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp To The Special Judge, Special Court for the trial of case under SC/ST (POA ACT)
CRP No. 2411 of 2025 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP No. 2411 of 2025
15-10-2026