Madrasdated High Court · 2025

CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 20225.Jayasudha D/o. Pandurangan Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. 6.Kavitha D/o. Pandurangan Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. 7.Muthukumaran S/o. Pandurangan Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. ... Petitioners / Petitioners / Plaintiffs Versus1.Narayanan S/o.Saminathan Muthaliyar Periyamambattu, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. 2.Ganeshan S/o.Saminathan Muthaliyar Periyamambattu, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. 3.The District Collector Villupuram District. 4.Revenue Divisional Officer Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. Page No.2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 20225.Revenue Thahsildar Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 6.Head Surveyor Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 7.Village Administrative Officer Periyamambattu, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. ...Respondents / Respondents / Defendants PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order made in I.A.No.852 of 2019 in O.S.No.97 of 2010 dated December 1, 2020, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi. For Petitioners:Mr.M.Mohamed Azharudeenfor M/s.A.Nowfal For Respondents 1&2:Ms.R.Divya Preathika For Respondents 3-7:Mr.R.VigneshwaranGovernment Advocate CRP NO.1813 OF 20221.Pandurangan (Died) S/o.Govindasamy Naikar Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. Page No.3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 20222.Sudhandiradevi W/o. Pandurangan Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. 3.Geetha D/o. Pandurangan Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. 4.Latha D/o. Pandurangan Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. 5.Jayasudha D/o. Pandurangan Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. 6.Kavitha D/o. Pandurangan Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. 7.Muthukumaran S/o. Pandurangan Peelamedu Village, Sangarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. ... Petitioners / Petitioners / Plaintiffs VersusPage No.4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 20221.Narayanan S/o.Saminathan Muthaliyar Periyamambattu, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. 2.Ganeshan S/o.Saminathan Muthaliyar Periyamambattu, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. 3.The District Collector Villupuram District. 4.Revenue Divisional Officer Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 5.Revenue Thahsildar Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 6.Head Surveyor Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 7.Village Administrative Officer Periyamambattu, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. ...Respondents / Respondents / Defendants PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order made in I.A.No.853 of 2019 in O.S.No.97 of 2010 dated December 1, 2020, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi. For Petitioners:Mr.M.Mohamed AzharudeenPage No.5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 2022for M/s.A.Nowfal For Respondents 1&2:Ms.R.Divya Preathika For Respondents 3-7:Mr.R.VigneshwaranGovernment Advocate COMMON ORDERFeeling aggrieved by the dismissal Orders dated December 1, 2020 passed by the 'Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi' ['Trial Court' for short] in the Interlocutory Application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the 'Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short] in I.A.No.852 of 2019 in O.S.No.97 of 2010 seeking to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect and measure the Suit Property with the help of a Surveyor and in the Interlocutory Application filed under Section 151 of CPC in I.A.No.853 of 2019 in O.S.No.97 of 2010, seeking to reopen the plaintiffs' side evidence, the Petitioners therein have preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.2.First Revision Petitioner-Mr.Pandurangan is the husband of the second-Revision Petitioner. Revision Petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are his children. Pandurangan filed an Original Suit in O.S.No.97 of 2010 seeking Page No.6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 2022mandatory injunction against the first and second defendants directing to remove the construction put up by them by encroaching the pathway and also seeking direction against defendants 3 to 7 to make necessary correction in the village revenue records by way of mandatory injunction. Trial commenced in the year 2017 and the plaintiffs' side evidence was closed with P.W.3 as early as on November 11, 2017. The second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and the defendants' side evidence was closed on June 28, 2018. Thereafter, the case was posted for arguments on July 6, 2018 and on subsequent dates. When the case was posted for final arguments on October 08, 2018, it was reported that the original plaintiff viz., Pandurangan passed away leaving behind his wife, four daughters and one son (Revision Petitioner Nos.2 to 7 herein). Subsequently, they were brought on record in the Suit. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs / Revision Petitioners filed Interlocutory Applications to reopen the plaintiffs' side evidence and to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to inspect the Suit Property with the help of a Surveyor. 2.1.The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications by reasoning out that the Interlocutory Application under Order XVI Rule 9 of CPC was filed belatedly and at the Page No.7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 2022stage of argument and that the plaintiffs can establish their case through revenue records and other evidence and that the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner is not necessary in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal Order, the Revision Petitioners preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 3.Mr.Mohamed Azharudeen, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions submits that the first item of Suit Property is a North-South Street and the second item of the Suit Property is the house property of the plaintiffs. The first and second defendants' property is situated on the eastern side of the first item Suit Property. The first and second defendants encroached the first item Suit Property and erected buildings. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a Suit for mandatory injunction to remove those encroachment. Further, the defendants 1 and 2 colluded with the Revenue Officials, namely defendants 3 to 7 and tried to make false entries in the revenue records. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a Suit for mandatory injunction to delete the entries made in the revenue records. Considering the nature of the Suit, the plaintiffs seek that appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner is Page No.8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 2022necessary to prove the nature of the Suit Property, the existence of pathway as well as the exact encroachment made by the defendants. Since the original plaintiff, namely Pandurangan passed away on October 2, 2018, there was a delay in filing the Interlocutory Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner. Hence, in the interest of justice, appointment of Advocate-Commissioner is very much essential to prove the plaintiffs' case and for that re-opening the Plaintiff side evidence is essential. However, the Trial Court, did not consider the entire facts and wrongly dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications. Accordingly, he prays to allow both the Civil Revision Petitions and set aside the dismissal Order passed by the Trial Court in the Interlocutory Applications and to allow the Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.852 and 853 of 2019.4.Per contra, Ms.R.Divya Preathika, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the Suit was filed on February, 2010. The defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement as early as on June 28, 2010. Both sides evidence was closed and the Original Suit was posted for argument as early as on July 6, 2018. For the past seven years, the Suit is pending at the argument stage, without any Page No.9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 2022progress. She further submits that the plaintiffs can establish their case by producing oral as well as documentary evidence. Appointment of Advocate-Commissioner is no way helpful to establish their case and that too, after fifteen years from the date of institution of the Suit. The Trial Court is right in dismissing the Interlocutory Applications and there is no warrant to interfere in it. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss both the Civil Revision Petitions. 5.Mr.R.Vigneshwaran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7 submits that it is an interse dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2, in which the Official Respondents are not related. Further, Official Respondents are bound and ready to obey the Decree to be passed in the Suit. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss both the Civil Revision Petitions. 6.This Court has considered both sides' submissions and also perused the Orders under challenge in these Civil Revision Petitions along with other materials on record. 7.As already stated supra, the Suit is one for mandatory Page No.10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 2022injunction against the defendants. The Suit was filed on February 2010 and the defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement in the month of June 2010. Trial commenced in November 2017 and plaintiffs' side evidence was closed with P.W.3 on November 11, 2017. The second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and the defendants' side evidence was closed with D.W.1 on June 28, 2018. The case was posted for arguments on July 6, 2018, both parties did not argue the case. When the case was finally posted for arguments, it was submitted that the original plaintiff passed away on October 2, 2018. Thereafter, his legal heirs were added as plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 and they have filed these Civil Revision Petitions after suffering the dismissal Orders passed in their Interlocutory Applications. 8.Considering the facts and circumstances and nature of the Suit, this Court is of the view that appointment of Advocate-Commissioner would no way be helpful to the plaintiffs, that too after fifteen years from the date of institution of the Suit. The Trial Court, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, rightly dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the Orders passed by the Trial Court and this Court finds no merit in these Civil Revision Petitions. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions must fail. 9.In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Page No.11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 2022Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 12.11.2025Index: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NoSpeaking Order: Yes / NoTKPage No.12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 2022To1.The Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi. 2.The District Collector, Villupuram District. 3.Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 4.Revenue Tahsildar, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 5.Head Surveyor, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. 6.Village Administrative Officer, Periyamambattu, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.Page No.13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP Nos.1806 & 1813 of 2022R.SAKTHIVEL, J.TK CRP NOS.1806 AND 1813 OF 202212.11.2025Page No.14 of 14