CRP/6753/2026 of Jayam (Died) 1. Jayakumar Vs Shanmugam on 27 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 28.7.2026 passed in I.A.No.12 of 2026 in O.S.No.64 of 2024 on the file of Principal

Sub-Court, Puducherry (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for appointment of an advocate commissioner to visit and identify the suit property with the help of a taluk surveyor, came to be allowed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.

4. The respondent, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for delivery of possession.

5. The suit property has been described in the plaint as follows:

“GJr;Nrhp 14> g+uzhq;Fg;gk; 1021/9.19> GQ;ir epyk;. fpuhkk; gl;lh Nkw;gb rg;. hp.b. mhpahq;Fg;gk; nfhk;Kd; hp.rh;Nt nek;gh; 94/17> fjh];jhh; vz; ne.546 apy; mlq;fpa 5 Fop 10 tPrk; msTs;s kid. ,jw;F rf;Fge;jp : uhN[e;jpud; kidf;F njw;F> uh[k; Fg;Grhkp kidf;F fpof;F & njw;F; ghijf;F Nkw;F.”

6. When the said suit was at the stage of final hearing, the respondent/plaintiff filed the said application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of an advocate commissioner. When the said application was filed, the properties were described in the said application as follows: “A-Schedule Property GJr;Nrhp hp.b. Nkw;gb rg;.hp.b. mhpahq;Fg;gk; nfhk;Kd; g+uzhq;Fg;gk; fpuhkk;> hp.rh;Nt nek;gh; 94/17> fjh];jhh; vz; 1021/gp.b. gl;lh ne. 546 apy; mlq;fpa 3 Fop 10 tPrk; msTs;s GQ;ir epyk;. ,jw;F nrf;Fge;jp : uhN[e;jpud; kidf;F njw;F> uh[k; Fg;Grhkp kidf;F fpof;F & njw;F>

ghijf;F Nkw;F> ,jw;Fg;gl;lJ.

B-Schedule GJr;Nrhp hp.b. Nkw;gb rg;. hp.b. mhpahq;Fg;gk;-nfhk;Kd;>

g+uzhq;Fg;gk; fpuhkk;> fpuhk nek;gh; 69> hp.rh;Nt nek;gh; 94/17> fjh];fhh; vz; 1021/ gp.b.> gl;lh ne. 546 apy; Nkw;gb A-Schedule mlq;fpa 3 Fop tPrk; msTs;s GQ;ir epyj;jpy; 1 Fop 10 tPrk; msTs;s kid> uh[k; ,jw;F nrf;Fge;jp :- uhN[e;jpud; kidf;F njw;F> Fg;Grhkp kidf;F fpof;F & njw;F> ghijf;F Nkw;F ,jw;Fg;gl;lJ. C-Schedule GJf;Nrhp hp.b.> Nkw;gb rg;. hp.b.> mhpahq;Fg;gk; nfhk;Kd;> g+uzhq;Fg;gk; fpuhkk;> fpuhk nek;gh; 69> hp.rh;Nt nek;gh; 94/17> fjh];jhh; vz;. 1021/gp.b. gl;lh ne. 546 apy; mlq;fpa 3> msTs;s GQ;ir ½

epyj;jpy; 2 Fop msTs;s GQ;ir epyk; kl;Lk;. ,jw;F nrf;Fge;jp : itj;jpypq;fk; kidf;F fpof;F> mhpaGj;jphp epyj;jpw;F njw;F> uhkrhkp kidf;F tlf;F> ghijf;F Nkw;F> ,jw;Fg;gl;lJ. ”

7. The respondent/plaintiff wanted the advocate commissioner to be appointed to identify the B schedule property more fully described in the said application and for that purpose, he wanted the advocate commissioner to take the assistance of the surveyor and to submit a report before the Court below.

8. The Court below allowed the said application on the ground that it would enable the Court to effectively dispose of the said suit by properly identifying the property concerned. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

9. In the considered view of this Court, the respondent/ plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration and for recovery of possession by specifically describing the property in the plaint, which has been extracted supra. The evidence has been let in by both sides and when the said suit was at the stage of final hearing, the said application came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff. In the said application, there has been a reference to Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C properties and the respondent/plaintiff wanted the advocate commissioner to be appointed to identify the B schedule property, over which, he was claiming the right.

10. In the first place, the description given in the said application regarding the properties is completely in variance with the description as found in the plaint schedule. Apart from that, the respondent/plaintiff is seeking for the relief of declaration of title and this is based on certain documents that were relied upon by him. The Court below can grant the relief of declaration of title only for the identifiable property as is described in the plaint. While so, the respondent/plaintiff has come up with a strange application at the fag end of the case by including B and C schedule properties in the said application that were not found in the plaint schedule. The Court below has mechanically allowed the said application without appreciating the fact that it has been filed to gather evidence in this case. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Court below suffers from perversity warranting the interference of this Court.

11. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.7.2026 passed in I.A.No.12 of 2026 in O.S.No.64 of 2024 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Puducherry is set aside. The Court below is directed to deal with the case based on the oral and documentary evidence that has been let in by both sides and dispose of the suit on merits. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 27-10-2026 To The Principal Sub-Court, Puducherry. RS

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6753 of 2026& CMP.No.29079 of 2026 27-10-2026