CRP/6234/2026 of Sarathkumar Vs Lakshmi on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court appointing an Advocate Commissioner to suggest the mode of division as per the preliminary decree.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )

CRP No. 6234 of 2026

2. The facts of the case are that the respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for partition against the other respondents and the father of the petitioner and obtained a preliminary decree for partition. Thereafter, the respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A. No. 175 of 2019 seeking passing of a Final Decree. In the meantime, the petitioner's father, Muthuraj passed away and the petitioner was brought on record as the 13th respondent in the final decree proceedings. The petitioner also filed a counter in the impugned final decree application, wherein he raised certain objections. By the impugned order, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to suggest the mode of division. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the preliminary decree was obtained by suppression of material facts and therefore the same is vitiated. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to oppose the final decree application and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. If the petitioner has any grievance against the preliminary decree, it has to be challenged in the manner known to law. Now, pursuant to the preliminary decree, the respondents 1 and 2, being the plaintiffs in the suit, filed an application seeking the passing of a Final Decree. In the said application, the

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )

CRP No. 6234 of 2026

Advocate Commissioner has been appointed to suggest the mode of division. Without appointing an Advocate Commissioner to suggest the mode of division, it may be difficult for the Court to pass a Final Decree. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order appointing the Advocate Commissioner.

5. It is made clear that the report of the Advocate Commissioner on the mode of division is only a suggestion, and the parties are at liberty to file their objections before the Trial Court, which shall decide about the division and the Final Decree only after hearing both the parties. The petitioner has already filed a counter, and the objections of the petitioner with regard to the mode of division to be suggested by the Advocate Commissioner will be considered by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the Final Decree petition. Therefore, I do not find any serious error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rya

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )

CRP No. 6234 of 2026

To:-

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )

CRP No. 6234 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR, J. rya CRP No. 6234 of 2026 CMP No.26929 of 2026 13-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 02:37:28 pm )