CRP/6540/2026 of N.Perumal Vs Tirupattur Town Vaisyar Society on 14 October 2026

Order

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in IA NO.1 of 2026 in OS No.80 of 2026, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Tirupattur District dated 12.08.2026, wherein the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property, note down its physical features and submit a report along with a plan, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs who filed the suit in OS No.80 of 2026 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending the suit, IA No.1 of 2026 was filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property, note down its physical features and submit a report along with the plan. This application was filed on the ground that there is an access pathway measuring 65 feet in length and 11 feet in width leading towards Periyakulam Medu on the southern side through which the plaintiffs have their only access and that the defendants were attempting to prevent the plaintiffs from using the pathway by putting up a compound wall. In view of the same, the plaintiffs sought for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the pathway, in particular, note down its physical features and submit a report.

4. The Court below has dismissed this application on the ground that it had been filed for the purpose of collecting evidence. The Court below held that the existence, nature and extent of the subsisting right over the pathway are matters that will have to be determined based on the pleadings and evidence that is let in by both sides. The Court below also rendered a finding that the petitioners had failed to show any particular physical feature which is incapable of being proved through the ordinary process of evidence and it requires local investigation by the Advocate Commissioner. In view of the same, the Court below held that there was no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the relief sought for by the plaintiffs.

5. The above reasoning given by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs confirmed that already an order of interim injunction has been granted by the Court below and inspite of

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA the same, such attempts were made by the defendants to block the pathway. If that is so, the petitioners will have to move an application for contempt under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC and work out their remedy. As rightly held by the Court below, considering the nature of relief that has been sought for in the suit, there is no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in this case.

6. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below is hereby confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The Additional District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Tirupattur District

AND CMP NO. 28192 OF 2026