Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2802/2026 of Selvakumar Vs Kalimuthu on 15 October 2026
CRP(MD) No. 2802 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2802 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011423622026}
Selvakumar,
Peranur Village,
Ponpethi Post,
Avudaiyarkovil Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Kalimuthu,
Peranur Village,
Ponpethi Post,
Avudaiyafkovil Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-36. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to call for records pertaining to impugned order dated 29.04.2026 made in I.A.No. 3 of 2026 in O.S.No. 90 of 2021 on the file of Sub Court, Aranthangi, and set aside the same by allowing the Civil Revision Petition and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s R.Paranjothi
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 petition is filed against the order dated 29.04.2026 passed in IA.No.3 of 2026 in OS.No.90 of 2021 by the learned Subordinate Court, Aranthangi.
CRP(MD) No. 2802 of 2026
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff, and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the petitioner and his family members. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify and demarcate the suit property and to note down its physical features. However, the trial Court dismissed the application by holding that it is a suit for permanent injunction and the possession and enjoyment of the property should be established by way of adducing documents and that the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. The petitioner contends that, unless an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to inspect the suit property and note down its physical features, he would be unable to establish that he had constructed a building on the property about 20 years ago and has been residing therein. In support of his contention, the petitioner submits that he has already produced the house tax receipts and electricity receipts relating to the building. He further contends that the defendant claims rights over the suit property on
CRP(MD) No. 2802 of 2026 the basis of a patta, which, according to the petitioner, does not by itself establish title to the property. The defendant has seriously disputed the petitioner's claim and filed a written statement denying the contention that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff.
4. According to the defendant, he is a tenant in possession and enjoyment of the suit property pursuant to the permission granted to him. The trial Court, upon considering the rival contentions of the parties, observed that the principal dispute relates to their respective claims over the suit property. While the plaintiff claims possession and enjoyment of the property pursuant to a partition, the defendant contends that he was permitted to reside therein as a tenant. The trial Court was of the view that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was not necessary to inspect the property and note down its physical features, as the dispute could be adjudicated on the basis of the documentary evidence adduced by the parties. It further observed that appointing a Commissioner in this circumstance would amount to collecting evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. This Court finds no valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
CRP(MD) No. 2802 of 2026
5. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NS To
1. The Sub Court, Aranthangi.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
CRP(MD) No. 2802 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. NS CRP(MD) No. 2802 of 2026 15-10-2026