Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/1797/2023 of POO. Narayansamy Vs Karpagam on 16 September 2026
C.R.P(MD)No.1797 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
C.R.P(MD)No.1797 of 2023
Poo.Narayanasamy
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Karpagam
2.Vetrivel
3.Tamilvel
..Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside and order dated 23.12.2022 passed in IA.No.421 of 2022 in OS.No.155 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru and allow the civil revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Yogeswaran
for Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondent
: Mr.M.R.Seenivasan
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
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 23.12.2022 passed in IA.No.421 of 2022 in OS.No.155 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru.
C.R.P(MD)No.1797 of 2023
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed a suit for the relief of injunction against the respondents/defendants. While the suit was pending, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 26, Rule 9 for appointment of a commissioner to inspect the property, measure the same and to file a report.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition was filed in order to gather evidence on the side of the petitioner. Against which the present civil revision petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents objected the petition by stating that the petitioner has not produced any material to show that the respondents created a problem to construct a house by encroaching his property. Only under an apprehension that they would encroach and create a problem, the petitioner has filed the petition. The trial Court rightly dismissed the petition by holding that the petitioner has not stated any proper reason to appoint a Commissioner. This Court also perused the records and it is seen that the petition has been filed only
C.R.P(MD)No.1797 of 2023 under the apprehension that the respondents would encroach the petitioner’s property to construct a building in future and in order to avoid the same, the petitioner wants to appoint a commissioner to measure the property, which seems to be not a convincing reason to appoint a Commissioner. This Court also concurs with the finding of the trial Court that in order to gather evidence on the side of the petitioner, he filed a petition for appointment of a commissioner and to file a report. There is no merit in this petition and the order of the trial Court needs no interference.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM Copy to The District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru.
C.R.P(MD)No.1797 of 2023 R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.1797 of 2023 16.09.2026