BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.20619 of 2025

1.Raja @ Karunamaharaja Krishna Moorthy (Died)

2.Raman

3.Maruthamalai

4.Jeyakumar

5.Chellapandi

6.Bommuraj 7.Veerammal 8.Anandhavel

9.Sivakumar

10.Podhumani 11.Karpagaraj

12.Shanthi ... Petitioners -vs.-

1.Murugesan

2.Soundhar

3.Vetrivel

4.Sadaiyandi

5.Balasubramani

6.Sasirekha

7.Vadivel ...Respondents PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order, dated 27.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.9 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Aathoor.

For Petitioners :Ms.M.Lavanya for Mr.C.Prithiviraj For Respondents :Mr.K.P.Ramesh *****

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aathoor. in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.9 of 2020, dated 27.11.2025.

2.Heard Ms.M.Lavanya, learned Counsel representing for Mr.C.Prithiviraj learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Mr.K.P.Ramesh, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3.The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2020 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Aathooor and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for permanent injunction and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners herein have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property and file a report with the assistance of a Surveyor. The said application came to be rejected by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Aathooor, vide impugned order, dated 27.01.2025 on the ground that by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, the petitioners have tried to collect evidence. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.Ms.M.Lavanya, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has not considered the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and that without considering those facts, the trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned order. She also submitted that the prayer sought for by the petitioners is only to measure the property with metes and bounds and there is no other intention on the part of the petitioners to drag on the proceedings. However, the trial Court by observing that there is no ground for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and the petitioners' intention is only to collect the evidence, which is against the law. It is her further contention that the trial Court has passed the impugned order erroneously, which needs interference of this Court.

5.Per contra, Mr.K.P.Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that since the suit was filed in the year 2020 and when the examination on the side of the plaintiffs was over and when the suit was posted for defendants’ side witness, the present application has been filed only to protract the trial. By considering all these facts, the Court below has rightly dismissed the said application, which does not warrant interference of this Court.

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

7.Admittedly, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2020 against the respondents for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners have filed an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property and file a report with the assistance of a Surveyor. However, the trial Court has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, the petitioners have tried to collect evidence.

8