CRP/2042/2025 of SARADHA @ SARADHAMBAL Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 8 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, in I.A.No.16 of 2024 in O.S.No.178 of 2018 dated 28.03.2025, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to submit a report along with a sketch, came to be dismissed by the Court below.

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

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.178 of 2018 seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed and settlement deed as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the seven respondent from trespassing into the second item of the suit property or altering the existing physical features of the suit property. Pending the suit, I.A.No.16 of 2024 in O.S.No.178 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to submit a report along with a plan on the ground that the defendants 7 and 8 have put up a construction and the status of the suit property must be ascertained to enable the Court to effectively dispose of the suit.

4. The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that there is no need for appointing an Advocate Commissioner in the case in hand considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff. The Court below further found that the application itself has been filed only for the purpose of collecting evidence.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner/plaintiff has sought for declaring two documents as null and void and for permanent injunction against the seventh defendant not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the second item of the suit property. Having sought for such a relief, there is absolutely no reason as to why an Advocate Commissioner must be appointed to note down the physical features. As rightly held by the Court below, the application itself has been filed with a view to collect evidence and the same is beyond the scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Accordingly, the impugned order is sustained and the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.178 of 2018 within a period of four

(4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode. Civil Revision Petition No.2042 of 2025