[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Sundaresan vs Chinnaiah on 12 March, 2026
C.R.P.(MD)No.686 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.686 of 2026
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3187 of 2026
Somasundaram (Died)
1.Sundaresan
2.Ramesh
3.Muthuraman
4.Pandi
5.Palaniyappan
6.Rajeshkumar
7.Balasundar
8.Sankar Ganesh ... Petitioners
vs.
1.Chinnaiah
Sathaiah (died)
2.Vellaisamy
3.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Alangudi Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 11:34:05 am )
C.R.P.(MD)No.686 of 2026
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
General Office Campus,
Pudukkottai Distrit.
5.State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by,
The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
fair and decreetal order dated 30.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.159 of
2024 in O.S.No.457 of 2018 on the file of District Munsif Cum
Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi and set aside the same by allowing this
Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasundaram
learned Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Paranjothi
for M/s.KBS Law Office
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Maran
For R-3 to R-5 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.K.Balasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Paranjothi for petitioner, Mr.M.Maran, for contesting
Respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special
Government Pleader for Respondents 3 to 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 11:34:05 am )
2. The challenge in this revision is the dismissal of an
application filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in
I.A.No.159 of 2024 in O.S.No.457 of 2018 on the file of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi.
3. Originally, the suit was presented as O.S.No.272 of 2015, on
the file of the District Munsif Court at Pudukkottai. Thereafter, on
account of bifurcation of the territorial jurisdiction, the suit stood
transferred and renumbered on the file of the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi as O.S.No.457 of 2018. The issue
pertains to the existence of a temple for the village deity by name
mUs;kpF milf;fyk; fhj;j ma;adhu;; jpUf;Nfhtpy;.
4. On the side of the plaintiff, it is their claim that the temple is
situated in the centre of the land in issue. The existence of the temple
is admitted but the location of the temple is disputed by the
defendant. In order to clarify this position, the plaintiff took out an
application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
5. The only plea raised by the defendant was that the
application is untenable, as the suit is only for bare injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 11:34:05 am )
6. The learned District Munsif, Alangudi, accepted the plea of
the defendant that there is a delay in filing the application and
consequently dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.
7. Careful perusal of the record shows that the existence of the
temple is not in dispute, but only the location of the temple is
disputed. The extent of the temple is said to be approximately
5 cents. There is no absolute bar for appointment of the Advocate
Commissioner in a suit for permanent injunction (see, K.Dayanand
& Another v. P.Sampath Kumar, (2014) SCC Online Hyd 959). The
bar for appointment arises when an Advocate Commissioner is sought
to be appointed to note as to who is in possession of the property.
There is no such dispute as to the temple in existence. The location of
the Temple woud assist the Court at the time of passing a decree. In
fact, the normal practice is to incorporate the Commissioner's plan as
a part of the decree.
8. The claim of the plaintiff is that both the temple and the
playground which the defendant asserts exist are going hand-in-hand
at least for the past 25 years. Hence, I am of the view that the location
of the temple being the matter in issue, the report of an Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 11:34:05 am )
Commissioner would assist the Court at the time of pronouncing the
judgment.
9. When the aspect of delay was pointed out,
Mr.K.Balasundaram, readily concedes that there is a delay, but urges
that need not stand in the way for the Court in appointing the
Commissioner. The Commissioner can be appointed soon after the
suit is moved or any time before the judgment passed in the suit. It all
depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Insofar as the delay is concerned, the Court could have
allowed the application on payment of cost by plaintiff to the
defendants.
11. Mr.M.Maran reports that the suit is posted for arguments
tomorrow (13.03.2026).
12. The Court shall issue a warrant to the Advocate
Commissioner and give appropriate directions to the Commissioner to
submit a report within a period of two weeks from today. Once the
report is received and in case there are no objections, the Court can
receive the report as evidence in the suit and pass appropriate orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 11:34:05 am )
In addition to the payment of Advocate Commissioner fee, the plaintiff
shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the
defendant.
13. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
Index :Yes / No 12.03.2026
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Nsr
To:
1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi.
2.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Alangudi Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
General Office Campus,
Pudukkottai Distrit.
4.The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Pudukkottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 11:34:05 am )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Nsr
Order made in
12.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 11:34:05 am )
