CRP/3569/2023 of SRI MAYAVAPERUMAL THIRUKOIL Vs ARAYE @ KAMADENU on 7 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.114 of 2018 by the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, wherein the application 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 the plan, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order. The first respondent has been served with notice and the name of the first respondent has also been printed in the cause list. However, there is no appearance for the first respondent either in person or through pleader.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.114 of 2018 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. Pending the suit, I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.114 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the suit property and to submit a report after noting down the physical features on the ground that an attempt is being made by the respondent to encroach upon the suit property. The Court below dismissed this application on the ground that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to whether there is any encroachment and as to who is in possession of the property. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

4. The reasoning given by the Court below while dismissing the application does not suffer from perversity warranting interference of this Court. If, according to the petitioner/plaintiff, they are in possession of the property, there is no need for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and the possession has to be proved independently. If, according to the petitioner/plaintiff, any encroachment has been made by the respondents, the petitioner has to necessarily seek for further relief of mandatory injunction. At that point of time, there will be some meaning in seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Without seeking for such a relief, there is no question of appointing an Advocate Commissioner to gather evidence. The order passed by the Court below does not require the interference of this Court. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm To The District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam. Civil Revision Petition No.3569 of 2023 07-10-2026