CRP(MD)/2505/2026 of P.Chinnasamy Vs P.Muthusamy on 11 September 2026

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed against the Order dated 19.06.2026 made in I.A.No.7 of 2026 in O.S.No.29 of 2025, on the file of the Sub Court, Rajapalayam.

C.R.P(MD)No.2505 of 2026

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.29 of 2025 filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against this defendants.

3. The trial in the suit commenced, and the evidence on both sides was completed. When the matter was posted for judgment on 19.02.2025, the plaintiffs filed a Commission Petition seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and report that the Common Wall had already been completed and that only the roof remained to be joined.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs filed their counter objecting to the appointment of the Commissioner, specifically contending that the evidence on both sides had already been completed and that, when the matter was posted for judgment on 19.02.2025, the plaintiffs, with a view to creating evidence in their favour, had belatedly filed the Commission Petition. However, without assigning any cogent or sufficient reasons, the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajapalayam, allowed the said petition on 19.06.2026, appointed an Advocate Commissioner, and posted the matter to 17.07.2026 for filing counter. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.

C.R.P(MD)No.2505 of 2026

5. The Commission Petition was filed at the belated stage of the proceedings, after the completion of evidence on both sides and when the matter had already been posted for judgment. The plaintiffs now seek to rely upon a subsequent alleged interference by the defendants with their possession. The burden, however, is entirely upon the plaintiffs to establish their case by producing convincing, cogent and legally admissible evidence before the trial Court. It is pertinent to submit that the plaintiffs have already instituted a suit for injunction, apparently with a view to creating evidence in their favour, they have filed the commission petition. Despite the completion of the trial and the matter being posted for judgment, the plaintiffs have sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner only at the belated stage. The learned trial Court, without properly considering the objections raised by the defendants and without assigning any valid or sufficient reasons for allowing the Commission Petition, has mechanically allowed the same. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

7. On a perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the suit was instituted by the

C.R.P(MD)No.2505 of 2026 respondents/plaintiffs seeking a decree of injunction restraining the revision petitioners/defendants from preventing or obstructing the plaintiffs from constructing an upstairs portion in the suit schedule property. The respondents/plaintiffs have specifically contended that they had already constructed a wall on the north-western side of the property and that they were only in the process of completing the said construction by laying the concrete roof. According to the plaintiffs, at that stage, the revision petitioners/defendants allegedly caused obstruction and created a dispute, which necessitated the filing of the suit. Now, after the completion of the evidence on both sides and when the matter had reached the stage of arguments/judgment, the respondents/plaintiffs have come forward with the Commission Petition seeking to establish that the construction of the wall had already been completed and that only the joining of the same with the roof remained to be done. Thus, the very purpose of seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner at this belated stage is to obtain evidence in support of the plaintiffs' case, which ought to have been established by them through oral and documentary evidence during the trial. The Trial Court, without properly considering the stage of the proceedings, the objections raised by the revision petitioners/defendants, and the fact that the evidence had already been concluded, has allowed the Commission Petition and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property as prayed for. The impugned order,

C.R.P(MD)No.2505 of 2026 therefore, amounts to permitting the plaintiffs to fill up the lacunae in their evidence and to create evidence after the completion of the trial, and is consequently liable to be set aside.

8. Though the Trial Court has not passed a detailed order, the impugned order is only a cryptic order. However, this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court, except with regard to the contention of the petitioners that the Commission Petition was filed belatedly. The petitioners have also failed to establish as to how the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner, for the purpose stated in the petition, would prejudice or otherwise affect their case. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

11.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns

C.R.P(MD)No.2505 of 2026 R.POORNIMA

, J. Ns To

1. The Sub Court, Rajapalayam

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.R.P(MD)No.2505 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.12449 of 2026 11.09.2026