Dismissed¶34

Mohammad Anif (Died) 1) Yasmin v. M.Asif

Madras HC23 Jul 2026CRP/4093/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Advocate Commissioner; appointment of Commissioner to collect evidence impermissible; encroachment during pendency of suit; remedy lies in amendment of pleadings and suit schedule; Article 227 revision; CRP No. 4093 of 2026; CMP No. 17878 of 2026; District Munsif Palacode; O.S. No. 159 of 2016; I.A. No. 652 of 2019; dismissal; no costs; Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.

What did the court decide?

An Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence; the law on this point is well settled. ¶28

Mohammad Anif (Died) 1) Yasmin Vs M.Asif — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP No. 4093 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

CRP No. 4093 of 2026 and CMP No. 17878 of 2026

¶7

Mohammad Anif (Died) 1) Yasmin w/o late Mohammad Anif, Door No.17/2, Kottai Street, Palacode Town, Palacode Taluk and Post, Dharmapuri District 636 808

¶8

2. Irfan

¶9

s/o Mohammad Anif, No.16/1, Bharathidasan Street, Palacode Town, Palacode Taluk and Post, Dharmapuri District 636 808

¶10

3. Nasrath Banu

¶11

d/o late Mohammad Anif, Door no.2/25, Adhidravidar street, Palacode Taluk and Post, Dharmapuri District 636 808

¶12

Tajmila d/o late Mohammad Anif, Door No.1/73, Aadhidravidar street, Palacode Town, Palacode Taluk and Post, Dharmapuri District 636 808

Petitioner(s)

1. M.Asif

s/o A.Maboop, Door No.4/128, Palacode Town Miasa, Palacode Taluk and Post, Dharmapuri District 636808

¶17

2.A.K.Muhammad Yehash

¶18

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

¶19

CRP No. 4093 of 2026

¶20

s/o B.Abdul Karim, Door No.4B, Ramaiya Nagar, college road, Kothuvacherry, Chennai City, Chennai 600 122

¶21

Respondent(s)

¶22

PRAYER

¶23

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order in IA No.652 of 2019 in OS No.159 of 2016 dated 5th March 2026 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Palacode

¶24

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Selvakumar For Respondent(s): Notice dispensed with

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the District Munsif Court, Palacode, in I.A. No. 652 of 2019 in O.S. No. 159 of 2016.

¶27

In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property, has been dismissed on the ground that the application has been filed only to collect evidence in support of the petitioners’ case.

¶28

The law is now well settled that, for collecting evidence, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed. The trial Court, has passed the impugned

¶29

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

¶30

CRP No. 4093 of 2026

¶31

order, only after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners had earlier filed an application, along with the suit, seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which got dismissed, has once again filed an application, seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on the ground that, during the pendency of the suit, the respondents/defendants had encroached upon the suit schedule property.

¶32

If there was any encroachment, the petitioners/plaintiffs ought to

¶33

have filed an amendment application, seeking to amend the pleadings, as well as the suit schedule. Without filing an amendment application, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property without giving details of the actual encroachment said to have been committed by the respondents/defendants.

¶34

The trial Court has rightly held that the application has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs only to collect evidence. As observed earlier, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

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

¶36

CRP No. 4093 of 2026

¶37