Dismissed¶37

S.Baskar v. Kamatchi

Madras HC26 Jun 2025CRP(MD)/1753/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Boundary stone fixation; reissuance of Advocate Commissioner's warrant; scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC; Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC; maintainability of second commission application after first complied with; I.A.No.773 of 2019; O.S.No.208 of 2019; Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai, Karur District; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice M.Dhandapani; Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Fixation of boundary stones does not fall within the scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, as it is not the duty of the Advocate Commissioner unless specifically directed. ¶32

S.Baskar Vs Kamatchi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1753 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1753 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD).No.9506 of 2025

¶7

1.S.Baskar

¶8

2.S.Lakshmipriya

¶9

3.S.Akilandeshwari @ Akiladevi

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.Kamatchi

2.Sankar

3.Veeramani

4.Senthilkumar

5.Rengarajan

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 13.03.2025 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.208 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai, Karur District, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶19

1/5

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1753 of 2025

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Karuna

¶23

- - - - ORDER

¶24

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking orders to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 13.03.2025 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No. 208 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai, Karur District.

¶25

The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.208 of 2019 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai, Karur District, against the petitioners and three Government officials, seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Pending suit, the petitioners herein, who are defendants 4 to 6, filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC seeking reissuance of a warrant to the Advocate Commissioner and for appointment of an expert Surveyor. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.03.2025.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents had earlier filed I.A.No.773 of 2019 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner along with a qualified Surveyor to measure the suit property. The said application was allowed and the Advocate Commissioner measured the property and filed a report before the trial Court. However, the boundary stones were not fixed during the measurement. 2/5

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1753 of 2025

¶29

Therefore, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking reissuance of a warrant for the purpose of boundary stone fixation. The trial Court dismissed the said application, against which the present civil revision petition has been filed.

¶30

The learned counsel further submitted that without proper demarcation and fixation of boundary stones, the measurement is incomplete and inaccurate. Therefore, the reissuance of the warrant and fixation of boundary stones are essential for proper adjudication of the dispute.

¶31

Since no adverse orders are being passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶32

Upon consideration of the submissions and the materials on record, it is seen that the Advocate Commissioner was already appointed in I.A.No.773 of 2019 and had submitted a report after measuring the suit property with the assistance of a qualified Surveyor. The petitioners had filed their objections to the said report, which have also been recorded. The present application has been filed seeking reissuance of the warrant for the purpose of fixing boundary stones. However, such a prayer does not fall within the scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, as fixation of boundary stones is not the duty of the Advocate Commissioner unless specifically directed. The earlier order appointing the Commissioner having been complied with, a subsequent application for reissuance of warrant for the same purpose is not maintainable.

¶33

3/5

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1753 of 2025

¶36