Dismissed¶34

R.Santhi v. G.Nagarajan

Madras HC3 Jul 2025CRP(MD)/1818/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; M.Dhandapani, J.; C.R.P.(MD)No.1818 of 2025; Article 227 Constitution of India; Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC; appointment of Advocate Commissioner; qualified surveyor; physical features; overlapping approved layout; declaration and permanent injunction; O.S.No.352 of 2010; I.A.No.385 of 2024; Additional District Munsif Court Thanjavur; dismissal of revision petition upheld; trial court order not interfered; R.Santhi v. G.Nagarajan and others.

What did the court decide?

The identification of the suit schedule property is not in question; if the layout approved by the Layout Promoter overlaps, the alleged overlapping has to be established before the trial Court by marking the approved layout, and for that purpose appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not at all necessary. ¶29

R.Santhi Vs G.Nagarajan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1818 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1818 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD) No.9990 of 2025

R.Santhi

... Petitioner

Vs.

G.Nagarajan

¶11

R.Alagar

¶12

Jamaal Moideen Pappa Represented by her Power Agent Kulanthaivelu.

¶13

S/o.Sethu Vijaya Thevar, 40, Arokiya Nagar, 1^st Street, N.K.Road, Thanjavur.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Thanjavur, Having Office at, Thasildar Office, Taluk Office, Thanjavur.

¶15

State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Collector, Thanjavur, Having Office at, Court Road, Thanjavur. ... Respondents

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.(MD)No.1818 of 2025

¶19

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 21.01.2025 passed in I.A.No. 385 of 2024 in O.S.No.352 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Thanjavur and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For R4 and R5 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 21.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.385 of 2024 in O.S.No.352 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Thanjavur and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶23

2.The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.352 of 2010 for declaration and permanent injunction and in that suit after trial, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to note down the physical features and to file a report with the help of a qualified surveyor. The said application was dismissed. Challenging the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.(MD)No.1818 of 2025

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the property from the approved layout promoter. Further, it was found that there was overlapping in the layout, which can be identified only by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. Thereby, the petitioner filed an application under order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC and the same was rejected by the trial Court. By appointing an Advocate Commissioner, no serious prejudice will be caused to the respondent. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable.

¶28

4.Since no adverse order is going to be passed as against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶29

5.Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as against the respondents/defendants. The identification of the suit schedule property is not in question. The only issue raised by the petitioner is that the layout approved by the Layout Promoter is overlapped. If it is so, the alleged overlapping has to be established before the trial Court by marking the approved layout. For that purpose, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not at all necessary. The said issue was rightly appreciated by

¶30

3/5

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P.(MD)No.1818 of 2025

¶33

the trial Court and the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was rightly dismissed. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court need not be interfered.

¶34

6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶35

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

03.07.2025

¶37

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes / No ta

¶38

¶39

1.The Additional District Munsif Court, Thanjavur.

¶40