Dismissed¶¶37

K.Thangarasu v. R.Nagaraj

Madras HC11 Jun 2026CRP/507/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; 11.06.2026; C.R.P.No.507 of 2026; C.M.P.No.2742 of 2026; Article 227 Constitution of India; civil revision; appointment of Advocate Commissioner; I.A.No.3 of 2025; O.S.No.8 of 2025; District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court Yercaud; declaration and injunction suit; suit schedule pathway; right of way; physical features; measurements; collecting evidence; no prejudice; Commissioner's report examined as witness; execution of warrant; dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; the trial court's order appointing the Advocate Commissioner stands. Petitioners permitted to seek further directions from the trial court regarding execution of the Advocate Commissioner's warrant; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.No.2742 of 2026 closed. ¶¶37

K.Thangarasu Vs R.Nagaraj — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and take measurements amounts to collecting evidence, as contended by the petitioners, such that the trial court's order should be set aside.

¶¶26

Court's answer

The Advocate Commissioner's noting down of the physical features of the suit schedule property and measuring of the property will not amount to collecting evidence, contrary to the petitioners' contention.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by the Advocate Commissioner noting the physical features of the suit schedule property and measuring the property.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The dispute over the respondent's claimed right to the pathway can be adjudicated by the trial court after trial, and the Advocate Commissioner who submits a report can also be examined as a witness if the petitioners so desire during trial.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (Article 227, Constitution of India) by defendants K.Thangarasu and T.Rani challenging the order dated 27.10.2025 of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Yercaud in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.8 of 2025, whereby the plaintiff R.Nagaraj's application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner appointed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and take measurements, in a suit for declaration and injunction concerning a pathway. Dismissing the revision on 11.06.2026, Abdul Quddhose J. held that noting the physical features and measuring the property will not amount to collecting evidence as contended by the petitioners, and that no prejudice would be caused to them; the dispute, including the respondent's reliance on a deed said to have been executed by the petitioners, can be adjudicated by the trial court after trial, and the Commissioner's report may be examined as a witness during trial if the petitioners so desire. The petitioners were permitted to seek further directions from the trial court on execution of the Commissioner's warrant. No costs; connected C.M.P.No.2742 of 2026 closed.

¶1

C.R.P.No.507 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.R.P.No.507 of 2026

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.No.2742 of 2026

1.K.Thangarasu

2.T.Rani

... Petitioners

Vs.

R.Nagaraj

... Respondent

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.10.2025 made in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.8 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Yercaud by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Prabakar For Respondent : Mr.J.Ramakrishnan

¶17

*****

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the

¶20

impugned order, dated 27.10.2025 passed by the District Munsif-cumJudicial Magistrate Court, Yercaud in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.8 of

¶21

Page No.1 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P.No.507 of 2026

¶24

2025, appointing an Advocate Commissioner, to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and for taking measurements.

¶25

2. I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.8 of 2025 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioners are the defendants in the said suit, which was filed for declaration and injunction. The declaration sought by the respondent was to declare that the suit schedule pathway belongs to the respondent. The contention of the respondent has been disputed by the petitioners through their written statement. The respondent has filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 along with the said suit seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

¶26

3. Under the impugned order, dated 27.10.2025, the application filed by the respondent has been allowed by the trial court by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and to measure the same. However, the petitioners have filed this revision challenging the impugned order on the ground that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence to enure to the benefit of the petitioners.

¶27

Page No.2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P.No.507 of 2026

¶30

The Advocate Commissioner has been appointed only to note

¶31

down the physical features of the suit schedule property and to measure the same. The suit has been filed by the respondent claiming right to use the pathway mentioned in the suit schedule property. Hence, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in this revision, if the physical features of the suit schedule property are noted down by the Advocate Commissioner and the property is also measured, and thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner files a report before the trial court. It will not amount to collecting evidence as contended by the petitioners in this revision. The respondent also relies upon a deed said to have been executed by the petitioners for the purpose of claiming right over the suit schedule pathway. The same has been disputed by the petitioners as seen from the pleadings of the petitioners before the court below. The matter can very will be adjudicated by the trial court after trial. The Advocate Commissioner, who will be submitting a report can also be examined as a witness, if the petitioners so desire during trial.

¶32

Page No.3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.No.507 of 2026

¶35

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶36

¶37

5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that there is no merit in this revision. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are permitted to seek further directions from the trial court with regard to the execution of the Advocate Commissioner’s warrant by the Advocate Commissioner as directed by the trial court under the impugned order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

11.06.2026

¶39

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

¶40

Th e District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Yercaud.

¶41

C.R.P.No.507 of 2026

¶42

Page No.4 of 4

¶43

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