Disposed¶30

K. Jegatheshan v. S.K. Raja Sekar

Madras HC30 Jan 2026CRP(MD)/232/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Advocate Commissioner report; encroachment; compound wall; age of compound wall; scope of warrant; examination of Commissioner during trial; no objection at inspection; multiplicity of proceedings; additional written statement; Article 227 Constitution of India; Civil Revision Petition; C.R.P(MD) No.232 of 2026; C.M.P(MD) No.934 of 2026; I.A.No.3 of 2024; O.S.No.46 of 2022; Principal District Munsif Court Tirunelveli; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; N.Senthilkumar; order dated 09.12.2025; judgment dated 30.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of with liberty to the revision petitioner/defendant to examine the Advocate Commissioner during the course of trial and elicit necessary particulars; no costs awarded; connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P(MD) No.934 of 2026) closed.

K. Jegatheshan Vs S.K. Raja Sekar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 09.12.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.46 of 2022 allowing the respondent/plaintiff's application to amend the plaint should be set aside in this Civil Revision Petition. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

If the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the Advocate Commissioner's report, it is always open to him to examine the Advocate Commissioner during the course of trial and elicit necessary particulars.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

It is for the trial Court to consider the Commissioner's report in accordance with law.

¶25

Key takeaways

In the absence of any specific finding regarding the age of the compound wall, the Advocate Commissioner's report can only be construed as indicating an alleged encroachment.ratio¶25
The scope of the Advocate Commissioner's report is confined to the terms of the warrant issued, and the trial Court is required to examine whether the report satisfies the said warrant.ratio¶25
The defendant did not raise any objections at the time of the Advocate Commissioner's inspection, which the Court noted as pertinent.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), N. Senthilkumar, J. — C.R.P(MD) No.232 of 2026, decided 30.01.2026: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli's order dated 09.12.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.46 of 2022, by which the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint — founded on the Advocate Commissioner's report dated 28.10.2024 indicating an alleged encroachment by the defendant on the second item of the suit property after institution of the suit — was allowed. Held: the scope of an Advocate Commissioner's report is confined to the terms of the warrant issued, and the trial Court must examine whether the report satisfies that warrant; since the report contains no specific finding regarding the age of the compound wall, it can only be construed as indicating an alleged encroachment, and it is for the trial Court to consider the report in accordance with law. The revision petitioner/defendant was left at liberty to examine the Advocate Commissioner during trial and elicit necessary particulars, the Court noting that he had raised no objections at the time of inspection. Petition disposed of with that liberty, without costs; connected C.M.P(MD) No.934 of 2026 closed.

¶1

C.R.P(MD) No.232 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 30.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P(MD) No.232 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD) No.934 of 2026

K.Jegatheshan

... Petitioner

Vs.

S.K.Raja Sekar ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order, dated 09.12.2025 made in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.46 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvaganpathy

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order made in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.46 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, dated 09.12.2025, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application filed by the 1/5

¶15

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

¶16

C.R.P(MD) No.232 of 2026

¶17

respondent/plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint.

¶18

The respondent/plaintiff filed the said application to amend the

¶19

plaint based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, dated 28.10.2024, stating that after the institution of the suit, the defendant had encroached upon the second item of the suit property and put up a construction therein. The trial Court, taking into consideration the said subsequent development and the fact that the suit is still pending for enquiry, held that if the amendment is not allowed, it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The trial Court further observed that this is the appropriate stage to permit such amendment and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, as he would have the opportunity to file his additional written statement. Accordingly, the application was allowed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶20

The revision petitioner/defendant contended that the Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the suit schedule property, has merely stated in his report that there exists a compound wall which has been encroached upon by the defendant. According to the revision petitioner,

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P(MD) No.232 of 2026

¶24

the said compound wall has been in existence for more than 30 years and the Advocate Commissioner has not stated anything regarding the age of the compound wall.

¶25

It is for the trial Court to consider the Commissioner's report in accordance with law. In the absence of any specific finding regarding the age of the compound wall, the report can only be construed as indicating an alleged encroachment. The scope of the Advocate Commissioner's report is confined to the terms of the warrant issued and the trial Court is required to examine whether the report satisfies the said warrant.

¶26

If the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the said report, it is always open to him to examine the Advocate Commissioner during the course of trial and elicit necessary particulars. It is also pertinent to note that the defendant did not raise any objections at the time of the Advocate Commissioner’s inspection.

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P(MD) No.232 of 2026

¶30