Madras High Court Allows Revision Petition for Advocate Commissioner Revisit in Property Dispute — Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The Court set aside the Trial Court's dismissal of the application for revisit and measurement, holding that the earlier Commissioner's report was incomplete and further measurement was necessary for just adjudication.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 14
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Thavamani and Selvamani, filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the order dated September 4, 2021 passed by the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, dismissing their application I.A. No.255 of 2020 in O.S. No.148 of 2014. The application was filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to revisit the suit schedule property and measure it with the help of a surveyor, with reference to the defendant's sale deed. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction regarding properties originally owned by Marimuthuammal, who died leaving her daughter Pachiammal. Pachiammal married Marimuthu, and from their wedlock no child was born. Marimuthu then married Kaveriammal, through whom the plaintiffs were born. Pachiammal executed a sale deed in 1998 for 10 cents in S.No.391/1b to one Devarajan, and later executed another sale deed in favour of the defendant for 5 cents in the same survey number. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant encroached upon their property. An earlier Advocate Commissioner had been appointed, but his report did not measure the property with reference to the defendant's sale deed. The plaintiffs therefore filed the application for a revisit. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the earlier Commissioner had already inspected the property and filed a report. The High Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel (the respondent remained unrepresented despite service of notice), held that the Trial Court's order was erroneous. The Court observed that the earlier Commissioner's report did not measure the property with reference to the defendant's sale deed, and such measurement was essential for proper adjudication of the suit. The Court set aside the Trial Court's order and allowed the application, directing the Trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to revisit the property and measure it with the help of a surveyor, with reference to the defendant's sale deed. The revision petition was allowed, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Order XXVI Rule 9 - Advocate Commissioner - Revisit and Measurement - The plaintiffs sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to revisit the suit property and measure it with the help of a surveyor, with reference to the defendant's sale deed. The Trial Court dismissed the application. The High Court held that when the earlier Commissioner's report did not measure the property with reference to the defendant's sale deed, the application for revisit was necessary for effective adjudication. The Court set aside the Trial Court's order and allowed the application. (Paras 1-8)

B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 151 - Inherent Powers - The Court can exercise inherent powers to order a revisit by the Commissioner when the earlier report is incomplete and further measurement is required for just decision of the case. (Para 7)

C) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The High Court can interfere with an interlocutory order of the Trial Court if it suffers from patent error of law or causes failure of justice. (Para 8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to revisit and measure the suit property with the help of a surveyor, when the earlier Commissioner's report was incomplete and the defendant's sale deed was available.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The revision petition is allowed. The order dated September 4, 2021 passed in I.A. No.255 of 2020 in O.S. No.148 of 2014 by the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to revisit the suit property and measure it with the help of a surveyor, with reference to the defendant's sale deed. The connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

Law Points

  • Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC
  • Section 151 CPC
  • Advocate Commissioner
  • Revisit
  • Measurement of Property
  • Surveyor
  • Trial Court's Discretion
  • Article 227 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 225

C.R.P. No.413 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.2120 of 2022

2026-01-23

R. Sakthivel

2026:MHC:247

Mr. A. Arun Anbumani for petitioners; Notice served – No appearance for respondent

Thavamani and Selvamani

T. Jayamani

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision petition against dismissal of application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to revisit and measure suit property.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought setting aside of Trial Court order and allowing their application for Advocate Commissioner revisit with surveyor.

Filing Reason

Earlier Commissioner's report did not measure property with reference to defendant's sale deed; revisit necessary for adjudication.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed I.A. No.255 of 2020 on September 4, 2021.

Issues

Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for revisit of Advocate Commissioner when the earlier report was incomplete. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the Trial Court's discretionary order.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the earlier Commissioner's report did not measure the property with reference to the defendant's sale deed, and a revisit with surveyor was necessary for proper adjudication. Respondent did not appear despite service of notice.

Ratio Decidendi

When an earlier Advocate Commissioner's report does not measure the suit property with reference to the defendant's sale deed, the court should allow an application for revisit and measurement with the help of a surveyor, as such measurement is essential for effective adjudication of the suit. The Trial Court's dismissal of such application is erroneous and warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment Excerpts

The revision petitioner filed I.A. No.255 of 2020 in O.S. No.148 of 2014, under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for short) praying to order for the Advocate Commissioner's revisit to the suit schedule property and to measure the suit schedule property with the help of surveyor with reference to the defendant's sale deed. The earlier Commissioner's report did not measure the property with reference to the defendant's sale deed. Therefore, the application for revisit is necessary for effective adjudication of the suit.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed O.S. No.148 of 2014 before the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri for declaration and injunction. During the suit, they filed I.A. No.255 of 2020 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to revisit and measure the property. The Trial Court dismissed the application on September 4, 2021. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court, which was allowed on January 23, 2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXVI Rule 9, Section 151
  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Revision Petition for Advocate Commissioner Revisit in Property Dispute — Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The Court set aside the Trial Court's dismissal of the application for revisit and measurement, holding that the earlier Commi...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeals in Land Suit Based on Adverse Possession and Limitation. Concurrent findings of possession and limitation reversed as courts below misapplied Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and failed to consider that t...