Madras High Court
CRP/6419/2026 of Arumugam Vs A.Palanisamy on 7 October 2026
CRP No. 6419 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. 6419 of 2026
and CMP No. 27620 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012185632026}
Arumugam
S/o Muthusamy Pillai,
Door No.407, 408, Poondurai Main Road,
N.M.S. Umamaheshwari Mahal Opposite,
Asokapuram, Erode.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
A.Palanisamy
s/o Appichi Gounder,
Door No.11, Dheeran Chinnamalai Street,
Asokapuram,
Veerappanchatram, Erode 638004
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final orders dated 27.04.2026 made in IA No.8 of 2026 in OS No.274 of 2020 on the file of the learned Second Additional District Munsif Court, Erode by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.S.Suganthan
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 challenging the fair and decreetal dated 27.04.2026 made in IA No.8 of 2026 in OS No.274 of 2020 on the file of the learned Second
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:13:06 pm )
CRP No. 6419 of 2026
Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/defendant to scrap the report of the Advocate Commissioner and to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner to conduct the survey and to submit a report, came to be dismissed by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.
3. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.274 of 2020, seeking for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the illegal construction and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up any further construction.
4. An application came to be filed in IA No.2 of 2020 for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and to submit a report. This application came to be allowed and survey was conducted and a report was filed. Thereafter, IA No.6 of 2024 came to be filed by the plaintiff for the re-issuance of the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner and this application was also allowed and the survey was conducted and the report was filed by the Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner/defendant filed objections to this report on 06.10.2025.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:13:06 pm )
CRP No. 6419 of 2026
5. The petitioner/defendant was aggrieved by the fact that the Advocate Commissioner, in his report, has virtually rendered findings as if there is an alleged encroachment made by the petitioner/defendant and that the plaintiff is in possession of nearly 91 cents and whereas the suit property itself was described as 51 ½ cents. In the light of these findings rendered by the Advocate Commissioner, petitioner filed IA No.8 of 2026 to scrap the report of the Advocate Commissioner and for appointment of a fresh Advocate Commissioner to conduct the survey and to submit a report. This application came to be dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the report of an Advocate Commissioner, at the best can be considered as only a peace of evidence. The petitioner has already submitted detailed objections to the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. In view of the same, if required, the Advocate Commissioner can be examined as a witness and the objection put-forth by the petitioner can be put to the Advocate Commissioner in the witness box. Apart from that, the Court below is not hound by the findings rendered by the Advocate Commissioner and the Court has to independently apply its mind while deciding the suit. If these safeguards are given to the petitioner, there is no need for scrapping the report and appointing another Advocate Commissioner. At the end of the day, the parties will have to prove their case
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:13:06 pm )
CRP No. 6419 of 2026
based on the materials relied up on them and the Advocate Commissioner’s report cannot be in the nature of collecting evidence for one party or the other.
7. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 27.04.2026 made in IA No.8 of 2026 in OS No.274 of 2020 on the file of the learned Second Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, is confirmed.
8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:13:06 pm )
CRP No. 6419 of 2026
To The II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:13:06 pm )
CRP No. 6419 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR CRP No. 6419 of 2026 07-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 06:13:06 pm )