Allowed

Tamilarasi v. The Family Manager

Madras HC6 Jan 2026CRP(MD)/1059/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal of application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for property measurement. Court allowed revision, setting aside trial court order, directing appointment of Commissioner to measure property and file report with plan, finding no prejudice to respondents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; directed to appoint Advocate Commissioner for measuring suit property with qualified Head Surveyor and filing report with plan.

Tamilarasi Vs The Family Manager — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶5

C.R.P(MD)No.1059 of 2025 and

¶6

C.M.P.(MD)No.5775 of 2025

Tamilarasi

...Petitioner

1.The Family Manager, P.Ramachandran

2.Subbarayan

3.Saroja

4.Suganya

5.Ravichandran

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 17.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.354 of 2018 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Karur.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh For Respondents : No appearance

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated

¶22

17.02.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.354 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur.

¶23

2.The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.354 of 2018 before the District Munsif Court, Karur, for the relief of permanent injunction along with other reliefs. Pending suit, the respondents 2, 3 and 5 along with others have filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property and the property owned by the petitioners therein/defendants 1, 3 to 5 and 7 and to note-down the physical features with the assistance of the qualified Head Surveyor, by filing a report and plan. The said application was dismissed on 17.02.2025. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶24

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of Civil Revision Petition would submit that in order to prove the case of the petitioner that North-South 3 feet space left behind the lands owned by the petitioner and others and the property of one Natchayee Ammal is the exclusive space owned by the petitioner and others, in which the first respondent/the plaintiff has no right, it is necessary to appoint an

¶25

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

¶26

Advocate Commissioner for measuring the property as stated above. He would further submit that no prejudice will be caused on the side of the first respondent/plaintiff, if the relief sought for by the petitioner is granted by this Court. He would therefore call upon this Court to set aside the order impugned herein and grant the relief as prayed for.

¶27

4.Despite service of notice to the respondents, when the matter is taken up for hearing today, none appears for the respondents.

¶28

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶29

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the issue involved in the suit. In the case on hand, an order of dismissal for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note-down the physical features of the suit property with a qualified Surveyor is under challenge. By appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property, in my opinion, no prejudice will be caused to the other side. The report of the Advocate Commissioner is itself a piece of evidence to enable the Court to arrive at a definite conclusion either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the respondents. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

¶30

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

¶31

7.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the

¶32

impugned order dated 17.02.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.354 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karur, is hereby set aside. The Court below is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the suit property including the property in SF.No.555 situated at Andankoil East Village, Manmangalam Taluk, with the assistance of qualified Head Surveyor and for filing a report along with plan. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶33

Speaking : Yes / No 06.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm

¶34

¶35

The Additional District Munsif, Karur.

¶36

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

¶37

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶38

¶39

C.R.P(MD)No.1059 of 2025

¶40

06.01.2026

¶41

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

Tamilarasi v. The Family Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilarasi v. The Family Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yesudhas Vs Samuvel

The Branch Manager Vs Minor.Mithuna

R.Balasubramanian Vs The Commissioner

V.Seyad Mohamed Asan Vs v.Rahuman

P.Vijayakumar Vs D.Petchi

Siva Rama Ganesh Vs S.Manickavasagam