Madras High Court
CRP/6369/2026 of P.Kalaiselvi Vs Thaiyalnayagi on 7 October 2026
CRP No. 6369 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6369 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010685672026}
1. P.Kalaiselvi
W/o. Pazhanimurugan
Pazhanimurugan (Died)
2. P.Vishnupriya
D/o. Pazhanimurugan
3. P.Yuvadarshni/17 years (minor)
D/o. Pazhanimurugan
4. P.Harivishwa/14 years (minor)
S/o. Pazhanimurugan
3rd and 4th respondents are represented by their Mother and Natural Guardian Mrs.P.Kalaiselvi
..Petitioners
Vs
1. Thaiyalnayagi
W/o. Late Marimuthu
2. Jayanthi
D/o. Late Marimuthu
3. Muthuvel
S/o. Late Marimuthu
4. Mahalakshmi
D/o. Late Marimuthu
5. Murugavel
S/o. Late Marimuthu
..Respondents
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 12:36:45 pm )
CRP No. 6369 of 2026
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the order dated 01.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.26
of 2024 in OS.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, set aside the same, allow the said I.A.No.26 of 2024.
For Petitioners :
Mr.C.Ganesh Pandian
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 fair and decreetal order dated 01.07.2025 made in I.A.No.26 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the encroached portion of the property and submit a report, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard Mr.C.Ganesh Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. The respondents are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.13 of 2023 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 12:36:45 pm )
CRP No. 6369 of 2026
4. The petitioners, who are the defendants, filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.26 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2023 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. Such an application came to be filed on the ground that the plaintiff is attempting to grab the property from the defendants and the plaintiff has made an encroachment upon the property and therefore, an Advocate Commissioner must be appointed to survey the property and to identify the encroached portion and submit a report before the Court below.
5. The Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of gathering evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
6. The reasoning given by the Court below while dismissing the application cannot be held to be perverse. An application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner cannot be filed for gathering evidence. The petitioners have filed the application only to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to survey the property and to identify the encroached portion of the said property. The Court below has rightly held that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for this purpose.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 12:36:45 pm )
CRP No. 6369 of 2026
7. Apart from the above, the order was passed by the Court below on 01.07.2025 and the petitioners have filed the copy application only on 04.09.2025 and the copy was delivered on 07.09.2025. This Civil Revision Petition was filed on 18.03.2026. It is true that there is no limitation provided for filing a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, that does not mean that a litigant can file a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as and when he wants to and the principle of laches will certainly apply even in a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court finds that there is an unreasonable delay which is unexplained and hence this Court can always dismiss the Civil Revision Petition on the ground of laches. This is yet another ground that has to be put against the petitioners. In the result, the order passed by the Court below stands confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mp
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 12:36:45 pm )
CRP No. 6369 of 2026
To
1. District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam.
2. V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 12:36:45 pm )
CRP No. 6369 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. mp CRP No. 6369 of 2026 07-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 12:36:45 pm )