Madras High Court
CRP/6656/2026 of Nivetha Vs Palaniappan on 15 October 2026
CRP No. 6656 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6656 of 2026
and CMP No. 28639 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012349212026}
1. Nivetha
D/o. Late. Palanisamy,
D.No.1/246,
Sathya Nagar,
Mullukkuriachi Village,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District.
2. Rani
W/o. Subburayan,
D/o. Ramasamy Gounder,
D.No.1/246,
Sathya Nagar,
Mullukkurichi Village,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Palaniappan
S/o. Nallayagounder,
D.No.1/150,
Sathya Nagar,
Mullukkurichi Village,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District.
2. Minor. Rohan
S/o. Senthilkumar
(Guardian by Father Senthilkumar)
CRP No. 6656 of 2026
D.No.1/150,
Sathya Nagar,
Mullukkurichi Village,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District.
3. Senthilkumar
S/o. Palaniyappan,
D.No.1/150,
Sathya Nagar,
Mullukkurichi Village,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District.
4. Mani
S/o. Ponnusamy,
D.NO.1/57,
Thumbalpatti,
Mullukkurichi Village,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 24.06.2026 passed in IA
No.03 of 2025 in OS No.72 of 2025 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
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 challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 24.06.2026 passed in IA No.03 of 2025 in OS No.72 of 2025 on the file of Subordinate
CRP No. 6656 of 2026
Judge, Rasipuram, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C., for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and to note down the physical features with the help of the qualified Surveyor, came to be rejected by the court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2025 seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed IA No.3 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C., for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property described as Items 1 and 2 in the suit schedule and to measure them with the help of the qualified Surveyor and submit a report.
4. This application was filed mainly on the ground that the defendants were threatening to demolish the teak trees, house, cattle sheds and other
CRP No. 6656 of 2026
physical structures located on the first two items of the suit property and therefore, unless and otherwise, the physical features are identified and submitted before the Court by way of a report, the petitioners will not be able to establish the existence of those structures.
5. The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for gathering evidence to support the claim of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, if any attempt is made by the defendants to demolish or remove the existence physical features in the suit property, the petitioners will have to file an application seeking for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., so that they can restrain the defendants from carrying out such demolition/removal. Instead, the petitioners have chosen to file an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which was rightly rejected by the Court below on the ground that such an application is not maintainable for collectig evidence.
CRP No. 6656 of 2026
7. The order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court and the same is sustained. It is left open to the petitioners to file an application seeking for interim injunction in order to safeguard their rights.
8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR
CRP No. 6656 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR To The Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram. CRP No. 6656 of 2026 15-10-2026