Plaintiffs in a title and injunction suit challenged the dismissal of their application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the disputed property and revenue records. The High Court held possession cannot be ascertained by a Commissioner and must be proved by evidence, and dismissed the revision petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP.No.4802 of 2025 and CMP.No.24246 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.4802 of 2025 and CMP.No.24246 of 2025
Versus
Palladam, Tiruppur District - 641 662.
... Respondents / Respondents / Defendants
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to setaside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.02.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.47 of 2024 on the file of the Sub - Ordinate Judge, Palladam.
1/7
CRP.No.4802 of 2025 and CMP.No.24246 of 2025
For Petitioners : Ms.R.Revathy For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Gopal, Government Advocate
ORDER
Unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
Palladam, was filed against the following defendants:
The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the suit schedule property
belongs exclusively to the plaintiffs, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his men, agents etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint second schedule property, including by removing the iron gate situated therein and to declare
2/7
CRP.No.4802 of 2025 and CMP.No.24246 of 2025
the show cause Notice given by the land revenue inspector Karadivaavi sub division Palladam Taluk on 18.02.2023, notice given by the third respondent on 05.01.2024 and Emergent circular given by first defendant on 06.02.2024 are all null and void. The defendants filed their written statement, and necessary issues were framed. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.47 of 2024 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC, seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Upon hearing either side, the Court below, vide order dated 19.02.2025, dismissed the application on the ground that there is no specific reason assigned for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and that the issues involved between the parties should be decided based on the evidence to be let in by both sides. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioners / plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
3/7
CRP.No.4802 of 2025 and CMP.No.24246 of 2025
Commissioner could inspect the property along with the relevant revenue records. It was further submitted that the case put forth by the fourth defendant can be effectively, disproved only through the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
support of the petition in I.A.No.4 of 2024, seeing appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the plaintiffs are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property, and that if the Court below appoints an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property, it would assist the Court in determining the plaintiffs' rights, possession, and lawful title over the second item of the suit schedule property. It has also been stated that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs, and that if the petition is not allowed, irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs. However, on perusal of the petition, it is seen that no specific reason assigned as to why the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary or how it would assist the Court in deciding the issues involved between the parties. Further, it is seen from the records that the dispute in this case pertains to the second item of the suit
4/7
CRP.No.4802 of 2025 and CMP.No.24246 of 2025
schedule property. It is not in dispute that there exists a pathway over the said property, however, whether the pathway is a "Vandi Pathi" as claimed by the fourth defendant, or whether it is under the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs, is a matter to be decided.
5/7
CRP.No.4802 of 2025 and CMP.No.24246 of 2025
09.10.2025
av Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To
The learned Sub Court, Palladam.
6/7
CRP.No.4802 of 2025 and CMP.No.24246 of 2025
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
av
CRP.No.4802 of 2025 and CMP.No.24246 of 2025
09.10.2025
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to ascertain possession of the suit property.
Whether the Sub Court rightly dismissed the plaintiffs' application for appointment of a Commissioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishnamurthy, T.K. vs. Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage BoardRelied on¶5
2006(5) CTC 178
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Palaniammal
V.Eswaramurthy
S.Jaganathan
The District Collector, Tiruppur District
The District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur District
The Tahsildar, Palladam Taluk
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
