Dismissed¶33

Bakkiam v. Subramanian

Madras HC16 Jun 2026CRP/2058/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP No. 2058 of 2025; CMP No. 11983 of 2025; Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; 16-06-2026; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; advocate commissioner appointment challenged; bare injunction suit OS No. 21 of 2025; IA No. 3 of 2025; Principal District Munsif Court, Attur; non-speaking order; counter objections not considered; defendants' right to object to commissioner report and cross-examine commissioner at trial; measurement of four boundaries with qualified land surveyor; revision dismissed, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in no way affects the rights of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, to contest the suit on merits and in accordance with law. ¶28

Bakkiam Vs Subramanian — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with and set aside the impugned docket order dated 23.01.2025 appointing an advocate commissioner, given the petitioners' contention that it is a non-speaking order which did not consider the objections raised in their counter filed in I.A.No.3 of 2025. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The impugned order in no way affects the rights of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, to contest the suit on merits and in accordance with law.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The advocate commissioner was appointed by the Trial Court only to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and to measure the same with the help of a qualified land surveyor.

¶28

Key takeaways

Once the advocate commissioner files his report, the petitioners have the right to file objections to the commissioner's report and also the right to cross examine the advocate commissioner during trial; hence the appointment does not prejudice them.ratio¶31
Although the Trial Court did not consider the contentions raised in the petitioners' counter in I.A. No.3 of 2025, that cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned order, particularly when the order will not affect the petitioners' rights.ratio¶32
For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not interfering with the impugned order; accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J.) | CRP No. 2058 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 11983 OF 2025 | Decided 16-06-2026. Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by three defendants (Bakkiam, Revathi, Manjula) challenging the docket order dated 23.01.2025 of the Principal District Munsif Court, Attur passed in IA No. 3 of 2025 in OS No. 21 of 2025 (a bare injunction suit by respondent Subramanian), whereby an advocate commissioner was appointed to note the physical features of the suit schedule property and measure its four boundaries with the help of a qualified land surveyor as per registered Revenue documents. Petitioners argued the order was non-speaking and ignored their counter objections, and that no commissioner is necessary in a bare injunction suit. Dismissed: the Court held the order does not affect the defendants' rights to contest the suit on merits; the commissioner was appointed only to note features and measure boundaries; and after the report is filed the defendants may file objections to it and cross-examine the commissioner during trial, so the Trial Court's failure to consider the counter is no ground for interference. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

CRP No. 2058 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

CRP No. 2058 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 11983 OF 2025

¶7

Bakkiam

¶8

Revathi

¶9

Manjula

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

Subramanian

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER

¶15

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Docket order dated 23.01.2025 passed in IA No. 3 of 2025 in OS No. 21 of 2025 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Attur and allow the above CRP.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Nalliyappan

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr.P.K.Shiva Kumar

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned

¶20

order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Attur

¶21

Under the aforesaid order, an advocate commissioner has been

¶22

appointed by the Trial Court to note down the physical features of the suit

¶23

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

¶24

CRP No. 2058 of 2025

¶25

schedule property and measure the four boundaries of the suit schedule property with the help of a qualified land surveyor as per the registered Revenue documents and thereafter, file a report to the Trial Court.

¶26

The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned order is a non speaking order and has not considered the objections raised by the petitioners through their counter filed in I.A.No.3 of 2025. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit.

¶27

The suit was filed for bare injunction to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the respondent’s physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The petitioners also contend that there is no necessity for the Trial Court to appoint an advocate commissioner in a bare injunction suit filed by the respondent.

¶28

The impugned order in no way affects the rights of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, to contest the suit on merits and in accordance with law. Under the impugned order, an advocate commissioner has been appointed only to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and to measure the same with the help of a qualified land surveyor. Once the advocate commissioner appointed by the Trial Court files his report, the petitioners always have got the right to raise all objections with regard to the

¶29

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

¶30

CRP No. 2058 of 2025

¶31

said report by filing objections to the commissioner’s report and the petitioners are also having the right to cross examine the advocate commissioner during Trial.

¶32

Though the contentions of the petitioners as raised in the counter filed by them in I.A. No.3 of 2025 have not been considered by the Trial Court, that cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned order that too when the impugned order will not affect the rights of the petitioners, who always have got the right to file objections to the advocate commissioner’s report and they also got the right to cross examine the advocate commissioner.

¶33

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not interfering with the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

16-06-2026