Madras High Court
CRP/6167/2026 of G. Jayaraman Vs M. Srinivasan on 1 October 2026
CRP No. 6167 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6167 of 2026
and CMP No. 26700 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012213182026}
G. Jayaraman
Sole Proprietor of Sri Bala Construction, C-1, Ground Floor, Lotus apartment, New No.9, Old No.5, Kuppusamy Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 17
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
M. Srinivasan
S/o.Marimuthu
34/45, GNG 2nd street,
Varadarajapuram Ambattur,
Chennai 53
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 24.08.2026 made in IA.No.495 of 2026 in
CC.No.19/2026 pending on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai by allowing this civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.G.Selvi George
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 order dated 24.08.2026 made in IA.No.495 of 2026 in CC.No.19/2026 pending on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, wherein the
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6167 of 2026
State Commission has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the subject property along with the qualified Engineer and to submit a report.
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 complainant who has filed the complaint before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking for various reliefs. Pending the complaint, IA No.495 of 2026 was filed by the respondent for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make an inspection and to submit a report. The said application was allowed by the State Commission and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The main ground that has been urged is that the complainant had purchased the flat on the second floor with one covered car park and with an undivided share in the land. The complainant did not pay the entire cost of the flat and there was an amount due and payable by the complainant. The Sale Deed that was presented before the concerned Sub Registrar was also refused to be registered on the ground that there was an under valuation. The flat was ready to be occupied and at that stage, the complaint came to be filed. It is
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6167 of 2026
contended that there was absolutely no reason for appointing an Advocate Commissioner in this case and that the Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing an Advocate Commissioner.
5. In the considered view of this Court, this Court must be very slow to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Consumer Commission. This is in view of the fact that the Consumer Forum is not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act and unless the Court finds the order to be utterly perverse so as to shock the conscience of the Court, the jurisdiction under Article 227 should not be exercised.
6. In the case in hand, the State Commission has thought it fit to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for which various reasons have been given in the order. The reasoning given by the State Commission does not certainly shock the conscience of this Court and therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court will exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the State Commission has permitted the Advocate Commissioner to appoint a qualified Engineer of his choice. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the original Advocate who was appointed as the Commissioner has been changed and a new
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6167 of 2026
Commissioner has been appointed. The petitioner wants a neutral Engineer to accompany the Advocate Commissioner. If that is the case, the petitioner can always move a memo before the State Commission and the State Commission will ensure that the qualified Engineer accompanying the Advocate Commissioner is a neutral person.
8. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in IA.No.495 of 2026 in CC.No.19/2026, dated 24.08.2026, is sustained.
9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6167 of 2026
To The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6167 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR CRP No. 6167 of 2026 01-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )