An Advocate Commissioner's report that exceeds the scope of the warrant is liable to be scrapped, and such a procedural irregularity outweighs the delay in filing the application to challenge the report.

PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 19.11.2025 of the learned Principal District Munsif of Padmanabhapuram in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in O.S.No.209 of 2016 allowing the said Interlocutory application.

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in I.A.No. 11 of 2025 in O.S.No.209 of 2016, dated 19.11.2025.

Heard Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.C.Godwin, learned Counsel for the respondents assisted by Ms.M.Ashvini, Legal Aid Counsel.

The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, have filed a suit in O.S.No.209 of 2016 against the petitioner herein before the Principal District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, for declaration, recovery of possession and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has also filed her report. The petitioner/defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.11 of 2025 to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report on the ground that the Advocate Commissioner's report is incorrect and improper for admission of evidence. The learned Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, vide impugned order, dated 19.11.2025, had dismissed the said application on the ground that citing minor variation cannot be a ground to scrap the Advocate Commissioner's report and the petitioner has also filed the application after a long period. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred the above Civil Revision Petition.

Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs sought for a relief of declaration, recovery of possession and for other reliefs. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court below has inspected the property and filed a report. The learned Counsel also submitted that the illustrations in the Advocate Commissioner's report for the suit schedule properties are exhaustive and the physical features of the suit properties existed at the time of the filing of the suit had not been noted correctly. Further, the Advocate Commissioner had not mentioned the correctly measured area of petition 'A' schedule property. Further, the encroachment area stated by the Commissioner to answer for Point No.1 is not correct and the plan in the report was also contrary to the schedule properties. He also contended that the Advocate Commissioner deposed that as per the Advocate Commissioner application, the petition 'A' schedule property measures, 3.500 cents, but, as per the report, the plaint 'A' schedule property measures 1.375 cents and that the extent of plaint 'A' schedule property in the report is contrary. He also submitted that the Advocate Commissioner fails to note down the actual enjoyment and ownership of the property of the defendant/petitioner and there was no clarity in the report and the Advocate Commissioner has not measured the properties as per the documents.

He also drew the attention of this Court to the suit schedule property along with the plaint. In plaint 'A' schedule property, the Re Survey number was stated as 763/12B3A part and 763/12B3B Part (1.300 cents), in schedule B, Re.S.No.763/12B3A (3.500 cents), in schedule-C, Re.S.No.763/11 (8.876 cents) and in Schedule-D, Re.S.No.763/12B3A part (0.650 cents). The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Advocate Commissioner's report reflects that the portion of the plaint 'D' schedule property is having 0.650 cents (763/12B3A part), and the suit 'D' schedule property covers part of Re.S.No.763/12B3A having an extent of 0.552 cents and 0.098 cents in Re.S.No.763/12B3B. He also pointed out that the Advocate Commissioner had gone beyond the scope of the warrant and even in the deposition by the Advocate Commissioner, the Advocate Commissioner has