CRP(MD)/2538/2026 of E.Bagathur Ramiah Vs N.Kanagaraj on 16 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.2025 of 2025 in O.S.No.200 of 2023.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff and also raised a counter-claim, contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that the disputed property belongs to him. The trial had already commenced. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 was also examined and cross- examined. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.5 of 2025 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property, with the assistance of a Government Surveyor, and to file a report along with a plan regarding the physical features and measurements of the property. The petitioner/defendant opposed the said application contending that the same was filed at a belated stage only with an intention to fill up the lacuna in the plaintiff's case. It was further contended that the plaintiff had already admitted that he did not have any document to establish his possession and enjoyment of the disputed property. However, notwithstanding the objections raised by the

CRP(MD) No. 2538 of 2026 petitioner, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Against which, this civil revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submitted that the suit itself is one for declaration and injunction and that the plaintiff had already adduced evidence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 had been examined and cross-examined. Therefore, the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, filed at such a belated stage, is nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order of the trial court is to be set aside and the civil revision petition is to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had demolished the existing building in the first schedule property and thereafter attempted to put up a new construction. When the plaintiff attempted to fix a window on the western side of the wall, the petitioner/defendant objected to the same, contending that the plaintiff did not have even an inch of land in the disputed portion. It is further contended that the second schedule property belongs to the power agent of the plaintiff and that the

CRP(MD) No. 2538 of 2026 petitioner/defendant was attempting to encroach upon the same. It is therefore submitted that, in order to ascertain the physical features, location and extent of the disputed property and to determine the respective possession and enjoyment of the parties, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, with the assistance of a Government Surveyor, is necessary. The learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner's report and plan would assist the Court in effectively adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The learned Trial Judge, taking note of the nature of the dispute between the parties, particularly the dispute regarding the demolition of the old building, the proposed construction and the fixing of the window on the western side, came to the conclusion that inspection of the property by an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a Government Surveyor would assist the Court in properly appreciating the physical features of the property and in adjudicating the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect and measure the property and to file a report along with a plan.

5. In this case, the dispute between the parties essentially relates to the identity, location and physical features of the disputed property. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, particularly with the

CRP(MD) No. 2538 of 2026 assistance of a qualified Surveyor, would enable the Trial Court to appreciate the physical features of the property and would assist in the effective adjudication of the dispute. Though the petitioner has contended that the application was filed at a belated stage and only to fill up the lacuna in the plaintiff's evidence, no sufficient reason has been made out to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Trial Judge. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, by itself, does not amount to permitting the plaintiff to fill up any lacuna in his evidence. The Commissioner is only required to inspect and measure the property and place the physical features before the Court.

6. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Trial Judge is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

CRP(MD) No. 2538 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. NS To

1. The I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRP(MD) No. 2538 of 2026 16-09-2026