Madras High Court
CRP/6000/2026 of Malliga Padmanaban Vs Revathy Krishnamoorthy on 5 October 2026
CRP No. 6000 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6000 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011823532026}
Malliga Padmanaban
W/o. Padmanaban,
T-19, NITTTR Staff Quarters,
Gandhi Mandapam Road,
Engineering College P.O.
Chennai 600 025.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Revathy Krishnamoorthy
W/o. Krishnamoorthy,
No.10, 6th Cross Street,
Mahalakshmi Nagar,
Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088.
2. Vijayasankar
S/o. Krishnamoorthy,
No.10, 6th Cross Street,
Mahalakshmi Nagar,
Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088.
3. Rajeswari
D/o. Krishnamoorthy,
No.10, 6th Cross Street,
Mahalakshmi Nagar,
Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088.
4. Dhanasekar
S/o. Gurupatha Nadar,
No.5/5, Bharathi Colony Annex,
Valasaravakkam, Chennai 87.
..Respondent(s)
__________
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:51 pm )
CRP No. 6000 of 2026
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order dated 11.06.2026 passed in EA No.01 of 2025 in EP NO.7 of 2022 on the file of the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram and consequently dismiss EA No.01 of 2025 as being not maintainable in law.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. J.Karthik Eswaran
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 challenging the order passed by the Executing Court, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of Taluk Surveyor.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein/plaintiff had obtained a decree for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. Subsequently, E.P.No.7 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondents/judgment debtors disobeyed the decree for permanent injunction by encroaching a portion of the suit property. The said execution petition was resisted by the defendants mainly on the ground that they have not made any encroachment on the suit property. Therefore, the respondents have filed an application in E.A.No.01 of 2025 seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of Taluk Surveyor. The said application was allowed by the Executing Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court. __________
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:51 pm )
CRP No. 6000 of 2026
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/ decree holder wants to enforce the decree for permanent injunction and in the executing proceedings, the Execution Court has unnecessarily appointed an Advocate Commissioner and the same is not at all warranted.
4. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the execution petition for arrest cum detention of the judgement debtors was filed mainly on the ground that the respondents/judgment debtors have encroached a portion of the suit property. The respondents filed counter and denied the assertions made by the petitioner. According to the respondents, they have not made any encroachment on the suit property. Therefore, the main issue to be decided is whether the respondents have made any encroachment. To resolve the said issue, the suit property should be measured with the help of Taluk Surveyor and certainly, such measurement will help the court in arriving at a conclusion on the allegations and counter allegations. Therefore, the Executing Court, by impugned order, has rightly appointed an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of Taluk Surveyor. I do not find any error or illegality to interfere with the impugned order. __________
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:51 pm )
CRP No. 6000 of 2026
5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram. __________
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:51 pm )
CRP No. 6000 of 2026 S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 6000 of 2026 05-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 04:22:51 pm )