Objections to Advocate Commissioner's report mandatory before re-issuance; delay bars late applications post-impleadment.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Melur, in I.A.No. 12 of 2026 in O.S.No.254 of

2009 dated 12.02.2026.

2. O.S.No. 254 of 2009 is a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction with respect to the suit schedule mentioned property. The defendants were served with summons. They have filed their written statement. Evidence has been completed. It is stated that the plaintiffs also made submissions in the suit. At that stage, the 13^th defendant, who was impleaded pending the suit in I.A.No.1172 of 2017 dated 23.08.2017 took out an application in I.A.No.12 of 2026, for issuance of summons to the Advocate Commissioner. The said application came to be dismissed on 12.02.2026. Hence, the revision.

3. I heard Mr.Ponniah, for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.T.K.Gopalan, for the first respondent/contesting plaintiff and Mr.S.Ramesh, for the respondent No.16/the 11^th defendant.

4.It is the plea of Mr.Ponnaiah, that the report of Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor sketch have not noted the properties in a proper manner. According to him, the Commissioner's report does not give the precise survey numbers and the corresponding re-survey numbers as they exist today. He further asserts that the Surveyor's sketch is only a reflection of the plaint plan. It was in those circumstances that he had filed an application for re-issuance of summons to the Advocate Commissioner. He states that the learned Trial Judge had erroneously dismissed the petition on the grounds of delay.

5. Per Contra, Mr.T.K.Gopalan, urges that the first plaintiff admittedly has purchased the property situated in Survey No.17/1A1A, whereas the suit relates to Survey Nos. 16/3C1B, 17/10, 17/12, 16/3C2 and 17/13. He attacks the purchase made by the civil revision petitioner itself, as one from a person not authorised, in terms of the orders passed in Trust O.P.No. 117 of 1981. He states that there is absolutely no error in the order passed by the Trial Court in dismissing the petition on grounds of delay. He further states that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants, including the civil revision petitioner had filed any objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report. Consequently, he pleads that the revision may be dismissed.

6. I have heard both sides. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and I have gone through the records.

7. For the purpose of disposal of this revision, I need not delve deep into the matter whether the 13^th defendant has the title to the property or whether it is the exclusive property of the plaintiffs. It is a matter which would necessarily have to be gone into by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal.

8. The scope of this revision is limited to whether an application for re-issue of summons has to be considered.

9.The Advocate Commissioner, who had visited the suit property, had submitted a report and a plan. This report and plan had been submitted much before the civil revision petitioner had been impleaded as a party to the suit on 23.08.2017. Hence, there would have not been any opportunity for the petitioner/13^th defendant to file any objections to the report. Yet from 2017 till 2026 and before the application was filed, ample opportunity was available to the 13^th defendant to file his objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report.

10. An application for re-issue is not for the asking. It is the duty of a party, who objects to an Advocate Commissioner's report to file his/her objections and call upon the court to record his objections and thereafter, the court can decide whether the report must be accepted or not. This