Madras High Court
CRP/6670/2026 of Jaishankar Vs Sudhakar on 26 October 2026
CRP No. 6670 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6670 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012426512026}
AND
CMP NO. 28687 OF 2026
Jaishankar
S/o. Rathinam
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Sudhakar
S/o. Jailendar@Munusamy
2. Chandra
W/o. M Sudhakar
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records relating to I.A.No.2/2025 in O.S.No.15/2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai, set aside the order and decree dated 22-07-2026 passed therein allow the above CRP.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Ravichandran
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decretal order passed in IA No.2 of 2025 in OS No.15 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate
CRP No. 6670 of 2026
Commissioner to inspect the suit property, measure the same with the help of the Taluk Surveyor and submit a report, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who has filed the suit in OS No.15 of 2023 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents / defendants took a stand that there is a pathway near Plot No.86 and 64. The petitioner wanted this fact to be established and therefore, filed the application seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
5. The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that considering the nature of relief sought for in the suit, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purpose of collecting evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
CRP No. 6670 of 2026
6. In the considered view of this Court, it is the specific stand of the defendants that there is a pathway near Plot Nos.86 and 64 and therefore, the burden of proof is upon the defendants to establish the same. According to the petitioner, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that an attempt has been made by the defendants to interfere with the possession and therefore, the suit has been filed. It is for the petitioner to establish the said fact and the petitioner / plaintiff need not take the effort of proving the case of the defendants. In view of the same, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and accordingly, the same is sustained and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai
CRP No. 6670 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 6670 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 28687 OF 2026 26-10-2026