Madras High Court

CRP/2703/2025 of Vinoth Foundation Vs S.Kumar on 29 October 2026

CRP No. 2703 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-10-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

CRP No. 2703 of 2025

and CMP No. 15289 of 2025

CNR: {HCMA011413672025}

Vinoth Foundation

Rep. by its Director S. Anusuya, W/o.

S.Saminathan, No-S/6, Premadha Apartments, Balaji Avenue, EB West, Guduvancherri, Chennai.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

S.Kumar

S/o. A.Sundramoorthy, Plot No. 4, Villa No. 6, Arunachaleswarar Layout, Kanniyamman Koil Street, Pudhupakkam Village, Chengelpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and decretal order passed in IA No. 4 of 2024 in OS

No. 221 of 2017 on 19.03.2025 on the file of Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Chengalpattu and dismiss the IA No. 4 of 2024 in OS No. 221 of 2017 and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Sridhar

For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Radha Pandian

CRP No. 2703 of 2025

Page 1 of 5

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 19.03.2025 passed in IA No. 4 of 2024 in OS No. 221 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, wherein the application filed by the respondent/defendant to issue witness summons to the Advocate Commissioner and the Civil Engineer in order to examine them came to be partly allowed by the Court below by permitting summon to be issued only to the Advocate Commissioner and rejecting the prayer insofar as it related to the issuance of summons to the Civil Engineer.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.221 of 2017 seeking for the relief of recovery of money towards the construction work undertaken by the plaintiff for the defendant.

CRP No. 2703 of 2025

Page 2 of 5

4. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property along with the Civil Engineer and to submit a report on the ground that the work that had actually been done must be ascertained for the Court below to effectively dispose of the suit. This application was allowed and the inspection was carried out by the Advocate Commissioner with the Civil Engineer and a report was also filed before the Court below.

5. The respondent/defendant had certain objections to the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner and after submitting the objections, IA No.4 of 2024 was filed to issue witness summons to the Advocate Commissioner and the Civil Engineer to examine them as witness.

6. The above application was resisted by the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that such an application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and more particularly, when the defendant has made a specific admission during the cross-examination and has admitted the extra work done by the plaintiff and had restricted the counter claim to Rs.10,18,611/-

CRP No. 2703 of 2025

Page 3 of 5

7. The Court below after considering the rival contentions, allowed the application and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

8. The main objections that has been raised on the side of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the defendant has acknowledged both the additional works carried out by the petitioner and his liability to make the payment while limiting the counter claim. Therefore, there is no need for examining the Advocate Commissioner.

9. Per contra, on the side of the respondent/defendant submitted that objections have been made to the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the same can be clarified only by examining the Advocate Commissioner as a witness.

10. In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court. If the Advocate Commissioner is examined, both the sides will be

CRP No. 2703 of 2025

Page 4 of 5

benefitted and the Court below will also be able to properly appreciate the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner while deciding the suit on merits. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

11. In the result, the order dated 19.03.2025 passed in IA No. 4 of 2024 in OS No. 221 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, is sustained and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be a direction to the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Chengalpattu to dispose of the suit in OS No. 221 of 2017, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR

CRP No. 2703 of 2025

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR To The Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. CRP No. 2703 of 2025 29-10-2026

Page 5 of 5

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead