CRP/6126/2026 of P. Balasubramanian Vs The Block Development Officer on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 29.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2023 by the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to measure the suit property with the help of the Taluk Surveyor and to file a report, came to be partly allowed by the Court below to the extent that the Advocate Commissioner will only note down the physical features of the suit property and their boundaries and will not measure the suit property.

2. Heard Mr.R.Ragavendran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed a suit in O.S.No.22 of 2023, seeking for a relief of permanent injunction. The actual relief that has been sought for by the plaintiffs is to restrain the defendants from in any manner putting up construction over the E Schedule property. Written statement was filed by the defendants and they questioned the very description of the E Schedule property. The plaintiffs, in order to enable the Court below to effectively understand the topography of the E Schedule property, filed I.A.No.5 of 2023 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and to submit a report.

4. The Court below partly allowed this application and held that the Advocate Commissioner should not measure the property, but, however should note down the physical features and boundaries.

5. In the considered view of this Court, if the Advocate Commissioner has to note down the physical features of the suit property and their boundaries, it cannot be done without measuring the property. The order passed by the Court below is self-contradictory, since on the one hand the Court below says that the Advocate Commissioner should not measure the property and on the other, the Court below directs the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property and their boundaries. Boundaries cannot be noted without measuring.

6. Unfortunately, in the present case, the order was passed on 29.02.2024 and the civil revision petition was filed only on 07.09.2026. In the meantime, the Advocate Commissioner has filed a report before the Court below by noting down the physical features. The delay in approaching this Court has virtually made the matter infructuous.

7. In view of the same, it is left open to the petitioners to submit their objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner and if ultimately the Court below wants to ascertain the boundaries to properly understand the E Schedule property, it is left open to the Court below to take appropriate decision while dealing with the suit on merits.

8. This civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.26544 of 2026 is closed. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)

To:

1. The Block Development Officer Acharapakkam Panchayat Union, Madurantakam.

2. The Head Master Panchayat Union, Middle School, Theettalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk.

3. The Assistant Educational Officer Acharapakkam Panchayat Union, Madurantakam Taluk.

4. The District Educational Officer The District Educational Office, Elementary Education, Chengalpattu.

5. The Tahsildar Taluk office, Madurantakam.

6. The District Collector District Collector Office, Chengalpattu.

7. The District Munsif Court, Madurantakam.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. (drm) C.R.

P. No.6126 of 2026

29-09-2026