The court allowed the petition for Advocate Commissioner, determining its necessity for property inspection, not solely for evidence collection.

O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.310 of 2024.

2.Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Adithya @ Ayyanar, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 4.

3.The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.310 of 2024 before the II Additional Subordinate Court at Nagercoil. The respondent are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for mandatory injunction and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.310 of 2024 under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, vide impugned order, dated 12.08.2025, has dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner has filed the present application only to collect evidence. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.Mr.M.P.Senthil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the grounds of revision and submitted that the Court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the application has been filed only to collect evidence, which is per se illegal. The learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioner has no intention to collect evidence by way of appointment of Advocate Commissioner and she is only seeking to survey the lands of the parties, which has been erroneously dismissed by the trial Court, which needs interference of this Court.

5.Per contra, Mr.K.Adithya @ Ayyanar, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has not encroached upon the petitioner’s land and that as rightly concluded by the Court below, the petitioner has filed the present application only with an intention to collect evidence, which has been rightly rejected by the Court below. Hence, he seeks dismissal of this petition.

6.This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the documents available on record.

7.From the records, it is revealed that an application was filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and file a report with the assistance of the surveyor. The trial Court had come to the conclusion that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is only for collection of evidence. However, this Court is of the view that the claim made seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is only to inspect the property with the assistance of the surveyor. If an Advocate Commissioner is appointed, he will visit the property after giving due notice to all parties. The respondents are at liberty to make his objection at the time of Advocate Commissioner, who visits the property. Even otherswise, if the respondents are aggrieved by the report, they can very well examine the Advocate Commissioner with regard to the discrepancies available in the report. After all these things, the report of the Advocate Commissioner is not a conclusive proof and it is only to aid the Court with regard to the measurement with metes and bounds. The Court below can very much accept the said report or reject the said report. Hence, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is unfounded and unreasonable and without looking into the merits of the case.

8.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.310 of 2024.is hereby set aside. The trial Court shall appoint a new Advocate Commissioner to survey the land with the assistance of the surveyor and the newly appo