IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :12.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and CMP.No.3504 of 2026

1.M.Sriramulu 2.M.Gajendran

3.M.G.Subramani 4.M.G.Srinivasulu

5.M.S.Subramaniam ... Petitioner vs.

K.Rajendran ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 13.08.2025 on the file of the District Munsiff, Tiruttani in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.69 of 2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan O R D E R The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, seeking

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for bare injunction against the petitioners. The said suit was resisted by the petitioners by denying the right and possession of the respondent over the suit property. The trial in the suit is commenced and now it is posted for recording evidence. At this stage, the petitioners filed an instant application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that in a the suit for bare injunction, there is no necessity for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by relying on the judgment of this Court in CRP.No.1642 of 2020 in Fawzunissa Vs. The Indian Hotel Company Limited and another submitted the trial Court committed an error in not appointing the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features.

4 A perusal of the affidavit of the petitioners, in support of the that the petitioner has not given any compelling reasons for appointment of

5. It is not the case of the petitioners that there is a dispute with regard to the identity or location of the suit property. In the absence of any dispute with regard to the identity or location of the suit property, the respondent has to prove their possession over the suit property by leading evidence. The petitioners are also entitled to lead the evidence in order to establish their possession and the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to assess the possession of the properties. Therefore, the case law relied on by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case.

6. I do not find any serious error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.02.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ub To The District Munsiff, Tiruttani.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

ub

12.02.2026