Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2573/2026 of A.Pandithurai Vs Petchiammal on 22 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2573 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011236562026}
Case QR
and
CMP(MD)No.12786 of 2026
1.A.Pandithurai
2.A.Vellaichamy
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Petchiammal
..Respondent
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.07.2026 made in C.M.A.No.4 of 2025 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul confirming the Fair and Decreetal order dated 15.11.2024 made in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in I.A.No.2317 of 2018 in O.S.No.101 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thangapandian
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 by the revision petitioner against the order order dated 27.07.2026 passed in CMA.No.4 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Dindigul confirming the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in IA.No.2317 of 2018 in OS.No.101 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs. The respondent is the defendant. The petitioners filed a suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. When the suit was pending, the petitioners filed a petition in IA.No.2317 of 2018 with a prayer to appoint a commissioner and direct him to inspect the property and measure the same and to file a Commissioner report. The petitioner admits that the Commissioner had already inspected the property and filed the Commissioner report. However, the petitioner contended that the commissioner has not properly mentioned the encroached portion of the land and he had mentioned only the smaller extent. Therefore, the petitioners requested the Court to reissue the commissioner warrant and direct him to measure the property with the help of Firka Surveyor, VAO. However, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Against which, the present civil revision petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the petitioners, the respondent/ defendant encroached 260 square feet of land and at his instance, the Commissioner was appointed and he also measured the property and filed the Commissioner report. But, according to the petitioners, the Commissioner has not properly measured the property. Hence, the petitioners have filed objections and the respondent/defendant also objected the same. Therefore, the petitioners filed a petition to reissue the commissioner warrant and the same was dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court is not proper and unless the Commissioner is directed to measure the property once again and to file fresh report, they will be put to hardships.
4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Commissioner had already inspected the property on 17.08.2019. However, no boundary stones were available on ground, both the parties raised objections regarding the identification of boundary. Consequently, the commissioner could not complete the measurement and the property will be measured after identified the boundary. The commissioner once again inspected the suit property on 25.05.2022. On that occasion objection was raised contending that the measurement should not be corrected in the absence of surveyor. Consequently, the commissioner visited the property on 10.09.2022 along with the surveyor. Upon inspection the surveyor also found that no boundary stones were available on the ground. Thereafter, the Commissioner proceed to measure the property by taking north east side as reference stone and filed a report and he also clearly mentioned that there is no boundary stone in the property belonging to the petitioner. He also mentioned about the encroachment committed by the defendant.
5. Both the parties have filed their respective objection. Now the present petitioners contention is that the surveyor has not measured the entire property and he has mentioned only a lesser extent. The petitioner cannot gather evidence through the Commissioner report. Already it is shown that he has already filed his objection and the trial Court, after perusing the Commissioner report, will pass orders taking into consideration of the objection, for which there is no need for reissue Commissioner Report. Hence, there is no merit in the civil revision petition and the order passed by the trial Court needs no interference. Therefore, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM To
1. The Subordinate Court, Dindigul.
2. The Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.2573 of 2026 22.09.2026