CRP(MD)/2701/2026 of K.R. Pondurai Vs R.A. Pon Ajitha @ A. Sunjana on 1 October 2026

ORDER

This Revision petition is filed against the order dated 13.07.2026 passed in IA.No.4 of 2026 in OS.No.158 of 2020 by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants filed a petition under Order 26, Rule 9 and Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to reappoint the same Commissioner to note and report the following points: “(1)The Commissioner is requested to note and report the common graveyard as per the Ex.A.3 partition deed.

(2) The Commissioner is requested to note report and submit photos of the foundation of eastern side demolished compound wall of the 3 feet pathway with the assistance of the photo graphe.

(3) The Commissioner is requested to note and measure the total width in between the eastern compound wall of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and western building wall of the 1st defendant. __________

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2701 of 2026

(4) The Commissioner is requested to note, measure and report the width in between the western compound wall of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and eastern boundary of common graveyard.

(5) The commissioner is requested to note, measure and report the encroached portion from the said common graveyard by the plaintiff.

(6) The Commissioner is requested to note, measure the 1st defendant’s property of 11 ½ cents in Re.Sy.No.399/10 of Neendakarai ‘B’ Schedule property.

(7) The Commissioner is requested to note and report the damage of the said common graveyard by the plaintiff.

(8) The commissioner is requested to note and report the attempt to encroach the 1st defendant’s property in Re.Sy.No.399/10 of Neendakarai ‘B’ village.

(9) The commissioner is requested to note and report the water and electric connections through the said 3 feet pathway.

(10) The Commissioner is requested to note, measure and report the 3 feet pathway from south to north, encroached portion from common graveyard and the 1st defendant property in the ‘B’ schedule property.

(11) Any other point requested by the defendants at the time of the commission visit.”

3. The petitioners contended that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a permanent injunction on the basis of an alleged easementary right of way by necessity through the plaint ‘B’ schedule property to reach the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. According to the __________

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2701 of 2026 plaintiff, his father had purchased the ‘A’ schedule property, and the ‘B’ schedule property was being used as a pathway to access the same. The revision petitioners/defendants allegedly obstructed the plaintiff’s use of the said pathway by putting up a construction. Aggrieved by the said obstruction, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his alleged right of way.

4. The revision petitioners contested the suit, contending that the pathway available was only three feet wide, whereas the respondent/plaintiff claimed that a 12-feet-wide pathway was available for their common use. In order to ascertain the physical features and dimensions of the pathway, the plaintiff filed a Commissioner application in I.A.No.3 of 2020. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and filed a report, to which the defendants submitted their objections.

5. The revision petitioners contended that the Commissioner had failed to note the relevant physical features of the property, particularly the graveyard and the old foundation. They therefore sought reissuance of the Commissioner's warrant with a direction to revisit the property and record the said features. However, the trial Court dismissed the application, observing that it had been filed at the stage when the __________

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2701 of 2026 defendants were adducing further evidence. The trial Court also noted that the Commissioner had not been examined to clarify the alleged deficiencies in the report and that the existing report had not been set aside. In these circumstances, the trial Court held that the request for reissuance of the Commissioner's warrant was not maintainable and dismissed the application.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners contended that, despite their objections, the Commissioner had failed to record the relevant physical features of the property. They submitted that a fresh inspection was necessary to establish that the pathway was only three feet wide, as claimed by them, and therefore prayed that the Commissioner be directed to revisit the property and submit a report noting the omitted features.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

8. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit seeking to establish his alleged easementary right of way. The scope of the Advocate Commissioner’s warrant was limited to noting the physical features of the property and ascertaining whether any alternative pathway was available to reach the plaintiff’s property. The __________

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2701 of 2026 Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and submitted a report. It is evident from the records that the revision petitioners had not submitted any memo of instructions to the Commissioner to note the specific features that they now seek to have recorded. Though the Commissioner filed the report and the revision petitioners submitted their objections, they approached the trial Court seeking reissuance of the Commissioner's warrant only after a considerable lapse of time, when the matter was posted for their evidence.

9. The trial Court observed that the objections raised by the revision petitioners had already been recorded and that the Commissioner could not be directed to revisit the property merely to gather evidence in support of their case. In view of the stage of the proceedings and the nature of the request, the trial Court found that the application was not justified and dismissed the same. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No __________

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2701 of 2026 To

1. The I Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. __________

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2701 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. NS CRP(MD) No. 2701 of 2026 01-10-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 11:23:03 am )