Madras High Court
CRP/1052/2024 of M. Selvaraj (died) 1. M. Bose Vs Shanmughakani on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.1052 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.5454 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA010385852024}
M.Selvaraj (died)
S/o.Mariappa Nadar
1. M.Bose
S/o.Mariappa Nadar
2. M.Arumughasami
S/o.Mariappa Nadar
3. M.Jayachandran
S/o.Mariappa Nadar
4. R.Ganesh
S/o.Rajamani
5. R.Priya
W/o.Senthilkumar
6. R.Kasthuribai
W/o.Rajamani
7. Ananthan
S/o.Selvaraj
..Petitioners
Vs
1. Shanmughakani
S/o.Mariappa Nadar
2. Suddha Sanmarga Nilayam,
Vadalur, represented by Secretary,
OPR Education Complex,
Neyveli Main Road, Vadalur.
3. The Tahsildar,
Kurinjipadi, Kurinjipadi Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
4. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by Collector of Cuddalore District, Office at Collectorate, Cuddalore.
5. The Executive Officer,
Vadalur Town Panchayat,
Vadalur, Kurinjipadi Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
6. R.Senthilkumar
S/o.Rajamani
7. Prema
W/o.Late.Selvaraj
8. Bhuvaneswari
W/o.Prakash
9. Sasikala
W/o.Somasundarakani
10.Krishnamoorthi
S/o.Selvaraj
..Respondents
[Respondents 6, 9 to 12 in I.A.No.546 of 2022 are not cooperating with the revision petitioners. Hence, they are impleaded as respondents in this revision]
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 05.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.546 of 2022 in O.S.No.56 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
For Petitioners :
Mr.D.Baskar
For Respondents :
Mrs.R.Meenal [R1 & R2]
Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi
Additional Government Pleader [R3 & R5]
No appearance [R4, R6 to R10]
*****
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 against the order dated 05.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.546 of 2022 in O.S.No.56 of 2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property along with a qualified surveyor and to measure the property, note down the physical features and to file a report along with a plan, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 5. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No.56 of 2018 challenging the notice issued by the third defendant and also sought for partition and allotment of 5/6 share in the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.546 of 2022 in O.S.No.56 of 2018 was filed by petitioners/plaintiffs on the ground that an extent of 42½ cents was purchased under the document but what is available on the ground is 57 cents and defendants 1 and 2 have filed a written statement as if only 42½ cents is available. In order to find out the extent of property that is available, the plaintiffs filed the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The Court below dismissed this application mainly on the ground that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of gathering evidence. The Court below also held that the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is not sustainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioners/plaintiffs, while describing the suit property, have mentioned the total extent of the property as 42½ cents. However, they claim that on ground, it is 57 cents and they want to establish the same. As rightly held by the Court below, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for this purpose and it will amount to using the services of an Advocate Commissioner to gather evidence. In any case, while dealing with the suit, the Court below will only determine the shares to which the respective parties are entitled. Thereafter, if the final decree proceedings are initiated that is the time where the Advocate Commissioner will be appointed by the Court to measure the property and to divide it by metes and bounds and give the respective shares to the parties. Therefore, there is no need for appointing an Advocate Commissioner at this stage. The order passed by the Court below does not warrant the interference of this Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order is sustained and this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be a direction to the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.56 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. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition No.1052 of 2024 07-10-2026