Kannappan vs Nageshwari - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38896

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38896

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Kannappan – Appellant
Versus
Nageshwari – Respondent
CMP.No.8129 of 2026|IA.NO.5/2025|OS.No.24/2009

Important Points

Court allows belated application for Advocate Commissioner in long-pending suit to aid adjudication and prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

Subject

Civil - Revision Petition

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.227

Headnote

First Paragraph: Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, revision petition challenges trial court's dismissal of application for Advocate Commissioner in suit for declaration and possession. Facts involve suit OS.No.24/2009 filed nearly 18 years ago, with application IA.No.5/2025 filed after trial commencement during defence evidence due to doubt in PW1 cross-examination on prior encroachment proof. Court finds application necessary for proper adjudication despite delay. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as whether belated application for Commissioner post-trial start should be allowed amid encroachment allegations. Ratio: Belated application allowed as Commissioner report aids adjudication, prevents multiplicity of proceedings, and protects parties' rights to present case effectively. Last Paragraph: Civil Revision Petition allowed; trial court directed to appoint Commissioner.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR.P.Pandiyaraj

Table of Content
1. background of revision against dismissal of commissioner application (Para 2)
2. petitioners justify need post-cross-examination (Para 3)
3. court allows despite delay for fair adjudication (Para 4 , 5)
4. directions for commissioner and crp allowed (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER

The revision petitioners have filed this petition, praying to set aside the order dated 22.7.2025 in IA.NO.5/2025 in OS.No.24/2009 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kancheepuram.

2. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A. No. 5 of

2025 in OS.No.24/2009 seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property. The application was dismissed by the learned trial judge on the ground that it was filed belatedly, nearly 18 years after the institution of the suit and after the commencement of trial, particularly at the stage of defence evidence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed for declaration and recovery of possession. During the cross-examination of PW1, a doubt arose regarding whether a Commissioner had been appointed to prove the alleged encroachment earlier, and hence, the present application was filed as the Commissioner’s report is necessary.

4. Though the application is belated, considering the nature of the suit and the allegation of encroachment, this Court is of the opinion that the report of the Advocate Commissioner may assist the court in proper adjudication. Denial of such an opportunity may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and affect the right of the parties to effectively present their case.

5. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to set aside the order of the trial court, and the application in IA.NO.5/2025 in OS.No.24/2009 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kancheepuram, is allowed.

6. The trial court is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner within two weeks. The Commissioner shall file the report within four weeks thereafter, after issuing notice to both parties. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.