CRP(MD)/2342/2026 of Amsu Vs Thavamani on 29 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

CRP(MD) No.2342 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order, dated 30/06/2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in O.S.No.222 of 2014 by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti. The said application was filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property and to submit a report. CRP(MD) No.2343 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order, dated 30/06/2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in O.S.No.222 of 2014, whereby the petition filed seeking to reopen the evidence in the suit was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record,

3. The respondent herein as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.222 of 2014 against the petitioners/defendants seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents, from in any manner putting up any construction in the suit property and also from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 seeking to reopen the evidence in the suit and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property and to submit a report. The learned Trial Court dismissed both the applications on the ground that an Advocate Commissioner had already been appointed, who had inspected and measured the property and submitted his report. It was also noted that sufficient opportunity had already been afforded to the petitioners to file their objections to the Commissioner's report.

4. It is further seen that the petitioners had earlier filed I.A.No.824 of 2014 seeking to scrap the Commissioner's report and for appointment of a fresh Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property with the assistance of a Surveyor except Mr.Ashaithambi, Head Surveyor, Usilampatti and to measure the property. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The petitioners had also filed their objections to the Commissioner's report.

5. In the present Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioners have not disclosed the fact that they had previously filed I.A.No.824 of 2014 seeking to scrap the Commissioner's report and for appointment of a fresh Advocate Commissioner and that the said application had already been dismissed. Even in the present applications, the petitioners have not specifically stated the grounds on which the existing Commissioner's report is liable to be scrapped or the necessity for appointing a fresh Advocate Commissioner.

6. The learned Trial Court has categorically recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to establish any necessity for a fresh inspection by another Advocate Commissioner. The petitioners have also not been able to point out any specific defect or infirmity in the Commissioner's report warranting a fresh inspection.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have already filed their objections to the Commissioner's report, which have also been taken note of by the learned Trial Court. This Court also finds that the petitioners have suppressed the factum of the earlier application filed by them seeking to scrap the Commissioner's report and to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit property, which application had already been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. In the absence of any new or compelling circumstance warranting a fresh inspection, the impugned applications cannot be entertained merely for the purpose of prolonging the proceedings.

8. Having considered the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court and the materials available on record, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

9. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 29/09/2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

To,

1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Usilampatti.

2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.POORNIMA.,J er CRP(MD)Nos.2342 and 2343 of 2026 29/09/2026