CRP/4495/2024 of JAYALAKSHMI Vs P.DHANARAJ on 11 November 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.168 of 2019 by the IV Additional District Munsif Court, Salem, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule

9 CPC appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of a qualified surveyor and to localize the suit property and to submit a report along with a plan, 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/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.168 of 2019 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from in any manner disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents/defendants filed a written statement and they were disputing the extent and physical features of the suit property. In view of the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.168 of 2019 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localize the suit property and to submit a report along with plan.

4. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence and the burden of proof is upon the respective parties to make out their case and that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner was not necessary. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the application was filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, purportedly, based on the stand taken by respondents/defendants in the written statement. The petitioner/plaintiff wanted an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed in order to localize the suit property and to submit a report. This is yet another case where the parties instead of letting in evidence before the Court wanted to develop the case based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Such practice has been repeatedly deprecated by this Court by passing various orders in this regard.

6. The parties will first have to let in evidence before the Court below. After completing this process, the Court below will determine whether an Advocate Commissioner needs to be appointed to submit a report for the effective disposal of the suit. That is a decision the Court will take at the appropriate stage. At best, an Advocate Commissioner's report is merely another piece of evidence and cannot singularly decide the dispute between the parties. Therefore, the report is meant only to assist the Court in adjudicating the matter, and not to enable a party to build or develop their case.

7. In view of the above, the order passed by the Court below is sustained and there shall be a direction to the Court below to record the evidence of both

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm sides and at the end, take a decision as to whether the report of the Advocate Commissioner will be required for effective disposal of the suit. This civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be a direction to the IV Additional District Munsif, Salem, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.168 of 2019 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. 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The IV Additional District Munsif, Salem. Civil Revision Petition No.4495 of 2024