CRP(MD)/2499/2026 of Gopalakrishnan Vs Lakshmi Narayaran on 16 September 2026

ORDER

The Revision Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.161 of 2022, instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2026, which was filed by the Revision Petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of inspecting the suit property and reporting on the relevant physical features. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and an Advocate Commissioner was accordingly appointed. Pursuant thereto, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and thereafter submitted his report before the trial Court.

2. The grievance of the Revision Petitioner is that the suit property was not properly surveyed with reference to any undisputed and permanent survey stone. The survey was not conducted in a proper manner, and the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner lacks clarity with regard to the manner in which the property was identified and measured. It is further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner, in his evidence, has admitted that the property was measured from the starting point of the suit property. The said admission would clearly indicate that the measurement was not carried out by fixing or identifying any undisputed and permanent survey stone as the reference point. Consequently, the measurements and findings contained in the Commissioner's report cannot be relied upon for the proper identification and determination of the suit property. In the above circumstances, the Revision Petitioner filed the application seeking to scrap the Commissioner's report. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said application solely on the ground that the same was filed belatedly, without properly considering the material defects in the Commissioner's report and the admission made by the Advocate Commissioner in his evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revision Petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that, though the Commissioner's report was filed on 30.09.2022, the Advocate Commissioner was examined only on 28.08.2025. Therefore, immediately after the examination of the Advocate Commissioner, the Revision Petitioner filed the application seeking to scrap the Commissioner's report. It was contended that the application could not have been filed earlier, as the defects and deficiencies in the Commissioner's report became apparent, particularly during the course of the Commissioner's examination. It was further submitted that the Trial Court, while dismissing the application on the ground of delay, failed to appreciate the above aspect and thereby committed a material irregularity. The impugned order, according to the Revision Petitioner, is therefore liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2019 AIR (SC) 729 in Ram Lal and Others Vs. Salig Ram and Others. On the strength of the said decision, the Revision Petitioner prayed that the Commissioner's report dated 30.09.2022 be scrapped and that the present Civil Revision Petition be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Advocate Commissioner inspected and measured the property in the presence of both parties and thereafter submitted his report before the learned Trial Court on 30.09.2022. The Revision Petitioner did not file any objection to the Commissioner's report at the relevant time. Thereafter, P.W.1 was examined and cross-examined, and the Advocate Commissioner was examined on the side of the defendant. It was further submitted that, even during the cross-examination of the Advocate Commissioner and the Government Surveyor, the Revision Petitioner did not put any specific suggestion that the property had not been surveyed with reference to an undisputed and permanent survey stone. Having failed to raise any such objection at the appropriate stage, the Revision Petitioner cannot now seek to challenge the Commissioner's report on that ground. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner conducted the measurement with the assistance of a Government Surveyor, who measured the four boundaries of the property. It was contended that the application seeking to scrap the Commissioner's report was filed only after an inordinate delay of nearly three years and, significantly, when the suit had reached the stage of arguments on the side of the defendant. According to the respondent, the belated filing of the application is only an attempt to protract the proceedings and delay the disposal of the suit. The Revision Petitioner, having participated in the proceedings and having failed to raise any objection to the Commissioner's report at the appropriate stage, cannot be permitted to reopen the matter at this belated stage. On the above grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application was filed only to prolong the proceedings and that there are no sufficient grounds warranting interference with the order of the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the application as well as the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the matterials available on record.

7. It is revealed from the records that the plaintiff filed I.A.No.127 of 2022 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court, and an Advocate was appointed as the Commissioner. Pursuant to the order of appointment, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property and submitted his report before the Court on 30.09.2022. Thereafter, the Trial Court granted time to both parties to file their objections, if any, to the Commissioner's report. However, neither side filed any objection within the time granted by the Court. Consequently, I.A.No.127 of 2022 was closed by the Trial Court on 31.10.2022. Thereafter, the parties adduced their evidence and the suit proceeded further, and the matter was subsequently posted for arguments. At that stage, the present application came to be filed by the Revision Petitioner/defendant seeking to scrap the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and to reissue the warrant to the Commissioner for a fresh inspection and measurement of the suit property.

8. It is the specific contention of the Revision Petitioner that the suit property was not properly identified and measured with reference to an undisputed and permanent survey stone. However, a perusal of the report submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner reveals that the property was measured in the presence of the counsel appearing on either side and that no objection was raised at the time of inspection. It is further seen that, immediately thereafter, the Trial Court granted sufficient opportunity to both parties to file their objections to the Commissioner's report. However, neither the present Revision Petitioner nor the respondent filed any objection within the time granted by the Court. Subsequently, the Advocate Commissioner was examined as D.W.2 and was subjected to detailed cross-examination. Even during such cross- examination, the Revision Petitioner did not put any specific suggestion to the Advocate Commissioner that the property had not been properly surveyed or measured with reference to an undisputed survey point or permanent survey stone.

9. In the above circumstances, it appears that the Revision Petitioner has raised the objection regarding the manner of measurement only at a belated stage. The Revision Petitioner, having failed to raise any objection either at the time of inspection, within the time granted by the Trial Court for filing objections, or during the cross-examination of the Advocate Commissioner, has not shown any sufficient or acceptable reason for seeking to scrap the Commissioner's report at this stage. The Trial Court has considered the contentions raised by the Revision Petitioner and, upon appreciation of the materials available on record, dismissed the application. This Court finds no material irregularity, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To

1. The Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.POORNIMA

, J. Ns CRP(MD) NO. 2499 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)NO.12401 of 2026 16.09.2026