Lakshmanan v. Malarvizhi
Case brief
What is this about?
Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J., 19-06-2026) dismisses CRP No. 3386 of 2026 filed under Article 227 challenging the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam order dated 01.04.2026 in I.A. No. 2 of 2026 in O.S. No. 99 of 2011 refusing appointment of an Advocate Commissioner sought by the second and third defendants to note physical features of the suit property after completion of plaintiff-side evidence; held that defendants cannot collect evidence through an Advocate Commissioner and must rely on documentary evidence; no infirmity in the trial Court's dismissal; connected CMP No. 14741 of 2026 closed. Keywords: Advocate Commissioner, collection of evidence, documentary evidence, Article 227, civil revision petition.
What did the court decide?
The petitioners/second and third defendants will have to defend the suit only through documentary evidence and they cannot collect evidence through appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.