Allowed¶34

V.Kalaiselvan v. P.Arumugam

Madras HC25 Mar 2026CRP/1058/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, T.V.Thamilselvi J., CRP No. 1058 of 2025 (with CMP No. 6100 of 2025), decided 25-03-2026: revisitation by advocate commissioner permitted where physical features of part-heard suit property changed due to National Highways land acquisition and new road formation; reissue of warrant to commissioner; Article 227; O.S.No.391 of 2022, Sub Judge, Katpadi; trial to be completed within four months; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed with no costs: impugned order of the Sub-Judge, Katpadi in I.A.No.1 of 2024 set aside; Advocate Commissioner directed to revisit the suit property and file a report; trial judge directed to complete the trial and dispose of O.S.No.391 of 2022 within four months; connected civil miscellaneous petition (CMP No. 6100 of 2025) closed. ¶34

V.Kalaiselvan Vs P.Arumugam — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether, after the suit became part-heard and the physical features of the suit property changed owing to acquisition of a portion thereof by the National Highways and formation of a new road, a revisitation by the advocate commissioner was just and necessary. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Since the case had become part-heard, a portion of the suit property abutting the National Highways road had been acquired by the National Highways after the earlier visitation, and the physical features of the property relate to the subject in issue, revisitation of the commissioner is just and necessary.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The findings rendered by the Sub-Judge, Katpadi in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.391 of 2022 are set aside, and the Advocate Commissioner is directed to revisit the property and file a report.

¶34

Key takeaways

Upon filing of the commissioner's report, the trial judge is to complete the trial and dispose of the suit within four months from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the dismissal of an application for reissue of warrant to the advocate commissioner for revisitation of the suit property in O.S.No.391 of 2022 (Sub Judge, Katpadi). The commissioner had been appointed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 and had reported in 2023; thereafter the suit became part-heard. A portion of the suit property, abutting the National Highways road, was subsequently acquired by the National Highways and a new road formed, changing the physical features relevant to the matter in issue. Holding such revisitation just and necessary, the High Court set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated 24.01.2025, directed the Advocate Commissioner to revisit the property and file a report, and directed the trial judge to complete the trial and dispose of the suit within four months of receipt of the order. CRP allowed, no costs; connected CMP No. 6100 of 2025 closed.

¶1

CRP No. 1058 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP No. 1058 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 6100 OF 2025

¶7

V.Kalaiselvan S/o. Late Venkatesan, Res. at Chennai Salai (Near Dr.Raja House), Bramnapuram, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.

¶8

V.Kalaiarasan S/o. Late Venkatesan, Res. at Chennai Salai (Near Dr.Raja House), Bramnapuram, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

P.Arumugam S/o. Late Ponnusamy, Madhuva Nagar, Somenakuppa, Shimoga, Karnataka State.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER

¶14

Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated 24.01.2025 passed in IA No. 01 of 2024 in IA No. 1 of 2021 in OS No. 391 of 2022 on the file of Sub Judge, Katpadi, by allowing the revision petition.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.S.Baskaran For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Arul

¶16

__________ Page1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

CRP No. 1058 of 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.391 of 2022 by the learned Sub-Judge, Katpadi, Vellore District, the Revision Petitioners/defendants preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶21

Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners filed an application seeking to reissue the warrant to the advocate commissioner to note down the physical features, since it was changed after the acquisition of land by the National Highways and formation of new road. But, the trial court failed to grant permission and erroneously dismissed the application. Aggrieved over that, they have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶22

The learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that at the earlier occasion, the advocate commissioner was appointed in I.A.No. 1 of 2021 and the report was also filed in the year 2023. Thereafter, the trial has begun. Subsequently, there was change in circumstances i.e. National Highways acquired the portion of land, which also forms part and parcel of the suit property. So, to show the present physical features of the property after the acquisition of lands by the National Highways and after the formation of new road, the report of commissioner is just and necessary. But the trial court failed

¶23

Page2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

CRP No. 1058 of 2025

¶26

to give such opportunity. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge.

¶27

The learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff raised objections stating that already the Commissioner was appointed in the year 2022 and thereafter, the report was filed in the year 2023. Now, after the closure of evidence, the revision petitioners/defendants came forward with the said application and the same was rightly dismissed by the trial judge. Hence, he prayed to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.

¶28

Heard and considered rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

Considering both side submissions, the fact reveals that admittedly,

¶30

now the case became part-heard, at this stage, the revision petitioners/defendants have filed the application for revisitation of commissioner, since after the visitation of commissioner, there was change of circumstances, more particularly, there was an acquisition of portion of property by the National Highways. Admittedly, the subject property is abetting the National Highways road. Since the physical features of property is relating to the subject in issue, the revisitation of commissioner is just and necessary. Considering that, this court is inclined to set aside the findings rendered in

¶31

Page3 of 5

¶32

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

¶33

CRP No. 1058 of 2025

¶34

I.A.No.1 of 2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.391 of 2022 by the Sub-Judge, Katpadi. The Advocate Commissioner is directed to revisit the property and file a report. After filing of the report, the trial judge is directed to complete the trial and dispose the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

25-03-2026

¶36

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶37

RPP

¶38

¶39

The Sub-Judge, Katpadi.

¶40

__________ Page4 of 5

¶41