Allowed¶35

Sornathal v. Sengottuvel

Madras HC22 Jan 2026CRP/262/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CRP No. 262 of 2026; S. Sounthar, J.; Article 227 Constitution of India; Advocate Commissioner report to be scrapped; appointment of fresh Advocate Commissioner; 38 cents vs 58 cents in Re-survey No.607/7A; non-speaking and cryptic order set aside; requirement of reasoned orders; remand for fresh disposal within two weeks; no costs; I.A. No. 18 of 2025 in O.S. No. 224 of 2024 / OS 223 of 2023; Principal District Munsif, Erode.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order of the Trial Court set aside; I.A. No. 18 of 2025 in O.S. No. 224 of 2024 remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal within two weeks after hearing both sides; no order as to costs. ¶35

Sornathal Vs Sengottuvel — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's dismissal of I.A. No. 18 of 2025 (the petition to scrap the earlier Advocate Commissioner's report and appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner) without any reason, by a non-speaking order, is liable to be set aside.

¶31

Court's answer

The Trial Court dismissed the petitioners' application without considering the reasons given by them on merits; the impugned order, being a non-speaking (cryptic) one, is liable to be set aside.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

I.A. No. 18 of 2025 in O.S. No. 224 of 2024 is remitted back to the Trial Court, which is directed to dispose of the application afresh within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, after hearing counsel for both the petitioners and the respondents; there shall be no order as to costs. (The merits of scrapping the Commissioner's report were left for fresh consideration.)

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Fair and Decretal Order dated 06.11.2025 in I.A. No. 18 of 2025 in OS No. 224 of 2024 (suit later renumbered as OS 223 of 2023, Principal District Munsif Court, Erode), whereby the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application to scrap the earlier Advocate Commissioner's report (which earmarked 38 cents in Re-survey No.607/7, though the petitioners claimed 58 cents in R.S.No.607/7A) and to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner. HELD: the Trial Court dismissed the application without any reason and without considering the petitioners' grounds on merits; a non-speaking, cryptic order is liable to be set aside. The impugned order was set aside, the first respondent having been given up before the High Court, and I.A. No. 18 of 2025 was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal within two weeks after hearing both sides; no order as to costs. The merits of the application were left open for fresh consideration.

¶1

CRP No. 262 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 262 of 2026

¶7

Sornathal, W/o. Late. Palanisamy Pappankattu Thottam, Najaiutthukuli Village Modakurichi Taluk, Erode Dist.

¶8

Srimathi, W/o. Velusamy Pappankattu Thottam, Najaiutthukuli Village Modakurichi Taluk, Erode Dist.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

Sengottuvel, W/o. Late. Palanisamy Aniruth Residency, Ground Floor Near Karmal School, Karur Bye Pass Road Kollamapalayam, Erode 2 Erode Dist.

¶12

M/s. S.K.M. Animal Feeds and Foods (India) Pvt Ltd. Company Managing Director M.Chandrasekaran S/o. Mailanantham, 613, Savadipalayam Puthur Road Nanjai Uthukuli Post Modakurichi Post, Erode Dist 638 104.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

__________ Page 1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

CRP No. 262 of 2026

¶17

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated 06.11.2025 passed in I.A. No. 18 of 2025 in OS No. 224 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial

¶18

Magistrate at Elamathur and subsequently said suit was transferred and renumbered as OS 223 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Ms. R.Hemalatha

¶20

For Respondent(s): Mr. M.Guruprasad

¶21

For Caveator/ 2^nd respondent

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial

¶24

Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking to scrap the report filed by the earlier Advocate Commissioner and to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property and to file a report as prayed for.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners made an endorsement, giving up the first respondent in this Civil Revision petition.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Trial Court, without any reason and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶27

__________ Page 2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

CRP No. 262 of 2026

¶30

The learned counsel for the caveator/2nd respondent would submit that as per the request made by the petitioners, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he filed a report earmarking 38 cents in Re-survey No.607/7. Therefore, according to him, the prayer sought for by the petitioners to scrap the earlier report filed by the Advocate Commissioner and to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner is not at all maintainable. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioners have not made out any case for scrapping the earlier report.

¶31

A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Trial Court has not given any reason for dismissal of the petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking to scrap the earlier report filed by the Advocate Commissioner and to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner, the petitioners have stated that total extent available in R.S.No.607/7A was 58 cents and the same has been wrongly mentioned by the Advocate Commissioner as 38 cents. Without considering the reasons given by the petitioners on merits, the Trial Court simply dismissed the petition by way of cryptic order. Therefore, the impugned order, being a non speaking one, is liable to be set aside.

¶32

__________ Page 3 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

CRP No. 262 of 2026

¶35

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the

¶36

impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The matter in I.A.No.18 of 2025 in O.S.No.224 of 2024 is remitted back to the Trial Court and the Trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.18 of 2025 in O.S.No.224 of 2024 afresh, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, after hearing both the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

22-01-2026

¶38

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

¶39

MST

¶40

¶41

The Principal District Munsif, Erode.

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43