To set aside the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in IA No.6 of 2025 in OS No.1059 of 2025 on the file of the learned XXII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s): MR.D. Ferdinand FOR M/S.BFS

Legal For Respondent(s): MR.G. Vivekanand

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in IA No.6 of 2025 in OS No.1059 of 2025 on the file of the learned XXII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

The petitioners herein filed IA No.6 of 2025 in OS No.1059 of 2025 on the file of the learned XXII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C., to appoint an Advocate Commissioner along with a qualified surveyor, to visit and inspect the Schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties, compare the measurements mentioned in the relevant parent title deeds and revenue records and file a report before this court as to the location of the Compound wall and whether the same is situated in Schedule ‘A’ or Schedule ‘B’ of the petition schedule mentioned property. In the said application the the petitioners contended that in order to ascertain whether the disputed compound wall falls within schedule ‘A’ property or schedule ‘B’ property, the appointment of advocate commissioner with qualified surveyor is necessary to decide the suit. On the other side, the respondents contended that sale deed dated 14.06.2000 unequivocally includes the compound wall as part of their property and the petitioners have failed to establish the necessity to appoint Advocate Commissioner.

Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the application stating that respondents have not disputed the existence of compound wall between A and B schedule properties which was 40 years old. Hence, there is necessity to appoint advocate commissioner.

Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners filed this Civil Revision Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondents have filed the suit for the relief of declaration to declare that the compound wall erected between the suit property and defendants property, morefully described in the item No.2 of the schedule and demarcated in the ‘Red’ colour sketch annexed to the plaint is part of to the respondents property(Item No.1) and belong to the plaintiff. Therefore, in order to establish whether suit compound wall is within the suit property or it is common, the petitioners wanted to measure the property with the help of surveyor by the Advocate Commissioner. But without considering the above fact, the Trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that suit is ripe for trial, at this stage the petitioners filed this application in order to drag on the proceedings and there is necessity to appoint the advocate commissioner to note down the physical feature and measure the property. Since the compound wall in existence for near about 40 years and all these years there is no dispute with regard to the same, in such circumstance the petitioners filed the said application as such is unwarranted and the same was rightly appreciated by the Trial Court which needs no interference.

Heard both sides.

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondents have filed the relief of permanent injunction and declaration to declare that the compound wall erected between the suit property and defendants property, morefully described in the item No.2 of the schedule and demarcated in the ‘Red’ colour sketch annexed to the plaint is part of to the respondents property(Item No.1) and belong to the plaintiff with other consequential relief. However the defence of the respondents is that the compound wall is part of the common passage which is belongs to him. This Court is of the view that identifying and measuring the suit property via an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a surveyor is necessary t