Madras High Court
CRP/1074/2025 of S.Sekaran @ Sekar Vs R.RAJA on 12 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.1074 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.6136 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA010514262025}
S.Sekaran @ Sekar
S/o.Srinivasan
..Petitioner
Vs
R.Raja
S/o.K.Ramalinga Reddy
..Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.04 of 2024 in O.S.No.8688
of 2022 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Nagarajan
For Respondent :
Mr.K.S.Madhavan
*****
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 against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.8688 of 2022 by the learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property came to be dismissed by the Court below.
2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who has filed the suit in O.S.No.8688 of 2022 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. Pending the suit, I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.8688 of 2022 was filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. This application was purportedly filed by the petitioner on the ground that a small portion of the suit property has been acquired by CMRL and compensation was also paid to the petitioner/plaintiff for the acquired land and therefore, the physical features of the suit property recorded by the Advocate Commissioner will help the Court to effectively dispose of the suit.
4. The Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the suit has been filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the respondent/defendant attempted to trespass into the property and therefore, the application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner has been filed only for collecting evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.
5. In the considered view of this Court, there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Court below. In the first place, both the parties will have to let in evidence and after recording the evidence, if the Court below feels that an inspection of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary to effectively dispose of the suit on merits, such a decision can be taken by the Court at the appropriate time. Except giving this clarity, there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. This civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be a direction to the learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.8688 of 2022 within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition No.1074 of 2025 12-11-2026