In a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a bare injunction suit, this single-judge bench held that there was no dispute regarding the identity or location of the suit property.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.No.646 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :12.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.646 of 2026 and CMP.No.3504 of 2026
1.M.Sriramulu 2.M.Gajendran 3.M.G.Subramani 4.M.G.Srinivasulu 5.M.S.Subramaniam
... Petitioner
vs.
K.Rajendran ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 13.08.2025 on the file of the District Munsiff, Tiruttani in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.69 of 2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by
the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner.
1/4
C.R.P.No.646 of 2026
2. The respondent herein filed a suit for bare injunction against the petitioners. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners by denying the right and possession of the respondent over the suit property. The trial in the suit is commenced and now it is posted for recording evidence. At this stage, the petitioners filed an instant application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that in a the suit for bare injunction, there is no necessity for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by relying on the judgment of this Court in CRP.No.1642 of 2020 in Fawzunissa Vs. The Indian Hotel Company Limited and another submitted the trial Court committed an error in not appointing the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features.
2/4
C.R.P.No.646 of 2026
5. It is not the case of the petitioners that there is a dispute with regard to the identity or location of the suit property. In the absence of any dispute with regard to the identity or location of the suit property, the respondent has to prove their possession over the suit property by leading evidence. The petitioners are also entitled to lead the evidence in order to establish their possession and the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to assess the possession of the properties. Therefore, the case law relied on by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case.
12.02.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ub
To
The District Munsiff, Tiruttani.
3/4
C.R.P.No.646 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
C.R.P.No.646 of 2026
12.02.2026
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appointment of Advocate Commissioner for noting physical features is necessary when there is no dispute regarding identity or location of suit property.
Whether trial court could refuse appointment of Advocate Commissioner in a suit for bare injunction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Fawzunissa Vs. The Indian Hotel Company Limited and anotherDistinguished¶20
CRP.No.1642 of 2020 in Fawzunissa Vs. The Indian Hotel Company Limited and another
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Sriramulu
M.Gajendran
M.G.Subramani
M.G.Srinivasulu
M.S.Subramaniam
K.Rajendran
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.Sounthar
Parties & counsel
