CRP(MD)/2203/2023 of Santhoshraj Vs SUYAMBULINGAM on 28 September 2026

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 26/07/2023 passed in IA No.304 of 2023 in OS No.8 of 2022 by the learned Trial Court namely District Munsif, Sathankulam, allowing the application filed by the 1st defendant seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs states that the first schedule property is their ancestral property, which was purchased by their father on 10/04/2000. The second schedule property is the pathway leading to the said property. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the second schedule property. The respondents/defendants 1 and 3 have filed their written statement separately. It is the contention of the petitioners that the defendants have not disputed the identity or demarcation of the suit property and they admitted the suit survey number. Therefore, according to the petitioners, there is no dispute with regard to the identity or demarcation of the property. In such circumstances, the 1st defendant filed an application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property. It is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned application has been filed only with a view to collecting evidence on behalf of the 1st defendant. However, without considering the above aspect, the learned Trial Court allowed the application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/1st defendant submitted that they have specifically stated in their written statement that the pathway in question is the only pathway available for both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant to reach their respective properties. It is further contended that the said pathway is the only access available to the 1st defendant to reach his property situated in Survey No.284/1D.

4. It is the further contention of the 1st respondent/1st defendant that the plaintiff's ancestors and the 1st defendant had already entered into an agreement permitting the parties to use the common pathway and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot now contend that the pathway exclusively belongs to them. It is also stated that the pathway runs in the north-south direction and that the 1st defendant can reach his property only through the said pathway. Therefore, the 1st defendant approached the Trial Court seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether there is any other pathway available for them to reach their property.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/1st defendant further submitted that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose would not amount to permitting the 1st defendant to collect evidence. The learned Trial Court, after considering the pleadings of both parties, has rightly found that an inspection of the property is necessary to ascertain the physical features and the availability of any alternative pathway. The Commissioner was, therefore, appointed only to assist the Court in arriving at a proper conclusion regarding the actual situation prevailing at the spot. In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent prays for the dismissal of the civil revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent1 and 3 and perused the materials available on record.

7. The suit has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the second schedule property. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs' property is situated on the northern side, whereas their property is situated on the southern side. It is the specific case of the 1st defendant that a pathway runs in the north- south direction and that the said pathway is being used by both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. The defendants further contended that the said pathway has been used by the parties for a considerable length of time and that an agreement was entered into between the parties in respect of the use of the said pathway.

8. It is also the specific contention of the 1st defendant that they had recently attempted to dig a well and obtain an electricity connection in their property and that at that stage, the plaintiffs filed the present suit. In such circumstances, the 1st defendant sought appointment of an Advocate

Commissioner to ascertain whether there is any other pathway available to him to reach their property.

9. The learned Trial Court, considering the rival pleadings and the nature of the dispute between the parties, found it appropriate to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and ascertain the actual physical features, including the existence of any alternative pathway available to the 1st defendant. The appointment of a Commissioner for such purpose would assist the Court in arriving at a proper conclusion regarding the real situation prevailing on the ground.

10. It is true that the main dispute between the parties relates to the pathway situated in the north-south direction. While the petitioners/plaintiffs claim the said pathway as forming part of their property, the 1st respondent/1st defendant specifically contends that it is a common pathway and that they have a right to use the same. The 1st defendant had also relied upon an agreement said to have been entered into between the parties in respect of the use of the pathway. In the above circumstances, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether the 1st defendant had any other pathway to reach his property and to note the physical features of the property, cannot be said to be an attempt to collect evidence. The report of the Advocate Commissioner would only assist the Trial Court in appreciating the physical features and the rival contentions of the parties.

11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28/09/2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

To,

1. The District Munsif Court, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.

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

R.POORNIMA.,J er CRP(MD)No.2203 of 2023 28/09/2026