CRP(MD)/2430/2026 of A. Velmurugan Vs The Commissioner on 22 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

CRP(MD)No.2430 of 2026 is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District, in IA No.07 of 2026 in OS No.51 of 2018, dated 17/07/2026, whereas CRP(MD)No.2431 of 2026 is challenged against the fair and decreetal order passed by the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District, in IA No.09 of 2026 in OS No.51 of 2018, dated 17/07/2026.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:12:53 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2430 and 2431 of 2026

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit, which has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, at the request of the petitioner/plaintiff, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Advocate Commissioner has also filed his report. When the matter was taken up for arguments, it was noticed that the Advocate Commissioner's report had not been marked in evidence. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the impugned petitions seeking to recall P.W.1 and P.W.2, permit the Advocate Commissioner's report to be marked in evidence and permit the examination of the Advocate Commissioner. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petitions mainly on the ground that the suit has been pending from the year 2018 and that there was a delay in filing the petitions. The Trial Court also observed that the petitioner/plaintiff had failed to mark the Advocate Commissioner's report at the appropriate stage and that the petitions have been filed only to prolong the proceedings.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the omission to mark the Advocate Commissioner's report was purely inadvertent and that unless an opportunity is given to mark the said report and examine the Advocate Commissioner, the petitioner would be

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:12:53 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2430 and 2431 of 2026 put to serious hardship. It is further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner's report is necessary for proper appreciation and clarification of the physical features of the suit property and therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for allowing these civil revision petitions by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the trial court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Sivakasi Municipal Corporation opposed the civil revision petitions and submitted that if the petitioner intends to examine the Commissioner, he ought to have filed an appropriate petition under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and obtained the permission of the Court for examining the Commissioner. However, the petitioner has not followed the said procedure and has merely filed petitions to reopen and recall the Commissioner. Therefore, the said petitions, having been filed without quoting the proper provision of law, are liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:12:53 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2430 and 2431 of 2026

6. A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner seeks permission to examine the Commissioner. Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC provides that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. It further provides that the Court or with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching upon any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to the manner in which the investigation has been made. It is evident that the petitioner has not quoted the appropriate provision of law while seeking such relief. However, the mere quoting of a wrong provision of law, by itself, cannot be a ground to reject the petition, particularly when the relief sought by the petitioner is otherwise permissible in law.

7. In the present case, the omission on the part of the petitioner to mark the Commissioner's report appears to have occurred inadvertently. If the petitioner is not permitted to mark the Commissioner's report and examine the Commissioner, the very purpose for which the Commissioner was appointed would not be served. Hence, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to mark the Commissioner's report and to examine the Commissioner.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:12:53 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2430 and 2431 of 2026

8. Accordingly, both civil revision petitions are allowed, by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Trial court. The petitioner is permitted to mark the Commissioner's report and to examine the Commissioner, subject to the right of the respondent to cross-examine the Commissioner. The petitioner shall complete the examination of the Commissioner within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court shall ensure that the petitioner does not unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. If the petitioner fails to examine the Commissioner within the aforesaid period, he shall not thereafter be permitted to mark the Commissioner's report or examine the Commissioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

22.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No er To,

1. The District Munsif Court, Sivakasi.

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

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:12:53 pm )

CRP(MD)Nos.2430 and 2431 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. er

CRP(MD)Nos.2430 and 2431 of 2026 and CMP(MD)No.11935 of 2026

22/09/2026

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:12:53 pm )

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 01:12:53 pm )