Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2674/2026 of R. Sivalingam Vs Muthammal on 8 October 2026
CRP(MD) No. 2674 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2674 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011319562026}
AND
CMP(MD) No. 13494 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011360602026}
1. R. Sivalingam
2. R. Sandhanaraj
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Muthammal
2. Madasamy
3. Ganesan
4. Arunachala Vadivu
5. Rajammal
6. Gunaseelan
7. Veluchamy
8. Narayana Perumal
9. Arunachala Vadivu
10.Madasamy
11.Sudalai
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-36. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to set aside the Impugned Fair order dated 21.08.2026
__________
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:50 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2674 of 2026
passed in E.A.No. 5 of 2026 in E.A.No. 1 of 2021 in E.P.No. 139 of 2008 in O.S.No. 110 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.R.Manimaran
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 is filed against order passed in EA No.5 of 2026 in EA.No.1 of 2021 in EP.No.139 of 2008 in OS.No.110 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.
2. The petitioners being the legal representatives of 8th respondent has filed a petition in EA.No.1 of 2021 under Section 47 of CPC. When the matter was posted for evidence, the petitioners filed a petition in EA.No.5 of 2026 with a prayer to examine the surveyor who had accompanied the Commissioner on his visit and permit them to examine the said Surveyor as a witness.
3. The petitioners now submitted that, at present two Commissioners have already been appointed and they have returned their warrants by stating that they could not find the property on the land as per the schedule and this is the third Commissioner, who has filed his report by stating that since the Surveyor stated that the western boundary did not tally with the __________
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:50 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2674 of 2026 petition and therefore, on this aspect, the petitioner needs to examine the Surveyor.
4. According to the petitioners, this Commissioner also returned the warrant by stating that part of the property was not able to be identified and he needs to examine the surveyor on how the measurement was taken by him.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the Town Survey Inspector conducted a survey on 12.08.2017, during the local inspection undertaken by the Advocate Commissioner and also the Commissioner report was produced before the Court on 24.08.2017. The petitioners challenged the Commissioner’s report by filing EA.No.3 of 2022, but the said petition was dismissed on 18.07.2024. Against which they filed CRP.No.2258 of 2024 which also came to be dismissed on 20.03.2025. Now, the petitioners again filed a petition seeking to examine the same surveyor who conducted the survey as a part of the Commissioner's proceeding, stating that his examination is necessary to ascertain on what basis the survey was conducted and the report was prepared.
6. It is stated that when the Court provided an opportunity, they have not even filed any objection for the Commissioner's report. However, they filed a petition to strike out the commissioner’s report, which was also __________
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:50 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2674 of 2026 dismissed.
7. The Commissioner report includes the map filed by the Surveyor and the trial Court also noted that similar applications were filed before the trial Court on three occasions, which was dismissed and the trial Court is of the view that now the examination of the Surveyor is not relevant and the trial Court will take into account all the objection of the petitioners, while deciding the main petition under Section 47 of CPC and the Court is also of the view that the effect of the petitioners are intending to drag on the proceedings.
8. This Court also finds that the Commissioner has filed his report with plain and all the relevant documents and the Court will decide the issued raised by the petitioners, while passing orders. Therefore, this Court do not find any interference in the order of the trial Court and hence, this civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RM __________
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:50 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2674 of 2026 To The Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi. __________
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:50 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2674 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. rm CRP(MD) No. 2674 of 2026 AND CMP(MD) No. 13494 of 2026 08-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:23:50 pm )