CRP/6610/2026 of Shajahan Vs Raziasulthana on 15 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.519 of 2017 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to re-issue warrant to the Advocate Commissioner to revisit the property and submit a report, came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.519 of 2017 seeking for the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the Advocate Commissioner had surveyed the property and measured the same with the help of a surveyor and a report was also filed. Thereafter, the trial proceeded and the suit reached the stage of examination of further witnesses on the side of the petitioner/defendant. At that stage, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.519 of 2017 for re-issuance of warrant to the Advocate Commissioner to revisit the property and submit a report along with a plan. According to the petitioner/defendant, the Advocate Commissioner, who had earlier inspected the property, had completely misconceived the warrant and filed the report along with particulars, which were not expected under the warrant. It was contended that the Advocate Commissioner had not acted in terms of the warrant and it will not in any manner help the Court to resolve the dispute.

4. The Court below, while dealing with the application, came to a conclusion that after the report was filed by the Advocate Commissioner, no objections were filed on the side of petitioner/defendant and that apart, the petitioner/defendant had summoned the Sub-Inspector of Survey to adduce evidence before the Court and later, when this witness appeared before the Court, the petitioner/defendant had filed a memo seeking to dispense with the examination of Sub-Inspector of Survey. The Court also took into consideration the fact that no valid ground has been raised by the petitioner/defendant for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to revisit the property.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court. Whatever grounds are raised by the petitioner/defendant should have been initially filed by way of objections before the Court below and a ground must have been created by at least examining the Sub-Inspector of Survey. Without taking any such step, at the fag end of the trial, the present application has been filed. In any event, the report of Advocate Commissioner is merely another piece of evidence and that will not, in anyway, be the deciding factor while deciding the suit. Ultimately, it is for both the parties to prove their case and at the best, the report of an Advocate Commissioner will only be a corroborative piece of evidence. In view of the same, the order passed by the Court below does not warrant the interference of this Court.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. Civil Revision Petition No.6610 of 2026