BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 17.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD).No.18240 of 2025 M.Appas Metha ... Petitioner Vs.

1.K.Ajis

2.M.Abdul Hakkim

3.A.Sathik Patcha

4.A.Abdul Appas Ali

5.The State of Tamil Nadu through The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

6.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Town, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the impugned fair and decretal order dated 20-06-2025 and made in I.A.No.87 of 2025 in O.S.No.211 of 2022 on the file of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Palani, set aside the same and allow this civil revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For Respondents : Mr.M.Antony Rajadurai for M/s.Roy & Roy Association for R1 to R4 Mr.F.Deepak for R5 & R6 Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and decretal order dated 20.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 87 of 2025 in O.S. No. 211 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Palani.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, as plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The present application was filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the assistance of a Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer and to file a report. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it was filed belatedly. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

4.The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court erroneously took into consideration the alleged period of possession of the revision petitioner as 50 years. However, the scope of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is only to measure the property with the aid of a Surveyor in order to establish the metes and bounds. Without considering the same, the trial Court dismissed the application.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. The revision petitioner, who claims to be in possession of the property, cannot seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to establish possession in a suit for declaration and injunction.

7.In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Selvamariammal Vs. Kanagavel in C.R.P. (MD) No.

1701 of 2017, dated 13.11.2018, wherein it has been held as follows:

“10.In the plaint para 10, the plaintiff had specifically averred that the defendant had encroached an extent of 22 feet east to west and 6 feet north to south measuring 132 square feet of vacant land belonging to the plaintiff. When such being the pleading, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove the encroachment alleged to have been made by the defendant by adducing oral and documentary evidence. As rightly observed by the trial court sine the defendant had contended that measurements given in the plaint were all wrong, the same is not the reason for seeking appointment of advocate Commissioner.

11.In K.M.A.Wahab and 5 others V. Eswaran and another, supra, the learned Single Judge of this Court held as under:

“6. ...... As far as the factum of possession is concerned, the Court alone gather evidence through the parties and it cannot entrust the said matter to the Advocate Commissioner to collect the evidence. .... in as much as there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property, the Trial Court has no reason to appoint the Advocate Commissioner. .......”

8.The point for consideration is, whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner would amount to collection of evidence?. In the present case, the application has been filed only to measure the prop