CRP/6858/2026 of K.Renuga Vs J. Jayasanthi on 29 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order made in IA No.7/2026 in IA No.5/2024 dated 15.07.2026, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant to reopen the application and to direct the Advocate Commissioner to revisit the property, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs who filed the suit in OS.No.1979 of 2006, seeking for the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, IA.No.5 of 2024 was filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and for submitting a report. This application came to be allowed by the Court below and the Advocate Commissioner had inspected the property, measured the same and submitted a report along with a plan.

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:20 pm )

CRP No. 6858 of 2026

4. The petitioner who is the 2nd defendant had some objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner has not complied with one of the direction that was given in the warrant. Hence, the application was filed for reopening the application and for a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to revisit the property and submit a report.

5. The Court below has dismissed the application by stating that the petitioner can submit his objections and there is no requirement for reopening the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP has been filed before this Court.

6. In the considered view of this Court, if the petitioner has any objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, those objections can always be filed before the Court below. If necessary, the Advocate Commissioner can also be examined as a witness. Ultimately, the Court can broadly come to three conclusions. Either the Court can accept the report of the Advocate Commissioner and act upon the same as another piece of evidence. The second option is that the Court can scrap the report and appoint another Advocate Commissioner to revisit the property and submit a report. The third option is that if the Court finds that a revisit is required, the Court can either direct the same Advocate Commissioner or another Advocate Commissioner to revisit the

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:20 pm )

CRP No. 6858 of 2026 property and specifically mention the purpose of revisit in the warrant and get an additional report filed by the Advocate Commissioner.

7. There is no question of reopening an application filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. This is in view of the fact that the report of the Advocate Commissioner becomes a piece of evidence before the Court. This can be dealt with by the Court below in the manner stated supra.

8. In view of the above since the petitioner has already filed the objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the Court below can deal with the same based on the observations made supra.

9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, to dispose of the suit in OS.No.1979 of 2006, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:20 pm )

CRP No. 6858 of 2026

To II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:20 pm )

CRP No. 6858 of 2026 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP No. 6858 of 2026

29-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:20 pm )