Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
N.S.Mohan Kumar S/o.Late Shanmugam, M.Preetha W/o. N.S. Mohan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
U.Jinendar Kumar S/o.P.Utttamkumar, V.Nilesh Kumar S/o. Late. Veerendra Kumar, S.Vinod S/o. Siluvainayagam – Respondent
CMP NO. 6519 OF 2026 | CRP No. 1336 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.E.Pratap, R.Prabakar, G.C.Nelson Britto

The need for appointing an Advocate Commissioner is essential in property boundary disputes to ascertain factual details.

Headnote:The Court considered a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to assess property boundaries in a suit for declaration and injunction. The Court found that the trial court's refusal to appoint an Advocate Commissioner was erroneous, as it is necessary to ascertain property boundaries in disputes of this nature. The Court held that the situation warranted the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and set aside the lower court's order, allowing the petitioners' revision.

Table of Content
1. seeking to set aside a trial court order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. need for appointing advocate commissioner affirmed. (Para 3)
3. verdict allowing the revision petition. (Para 5)

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the Fair and Final order dated 17.11.2025 made in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in OS No. 568 of

2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in OS No. 568 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, seeking to appoint Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical feature and measure the property. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Court held that Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out the facts and gather the evidence of prove the case of the parties. Accordingly, dismissed the application.

Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of declaration and injunction against the defendants stating that at the time of their purchase the description of property wrongly mentioned. Thereby the dispute arose between them with regard of boundaries of the property, which necessitated the petitioner to file the suit for declaration. Consequently in order to establish the boundaries, the petitioner filed the application to appoint advocate Commissioner to note down the physical feature of the suit property but it was dismissed by the Trial Court.

Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

4. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. A perusal of records reveals that there is dispute between the parties with regard to boundaries and extent of the property. Therefore, it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property with the assistance of a Surveyor. But the Trial Court failed to consider the same; as such impugned order is erroneous and illegal. The order dated 17.11.2025 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in OS No. 568 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore is set aside and direct the Trial Court to appoint Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No Costs. Pending petition, if any, is/are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document