A court may refuse to reissue a commission warrant for land identification if existing records, such as an FMB sketch, are sufficient and the party has the alternative, effective remedy of cross-examining the Advocate Commissioner to address procedural or factual grievances.

PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in IA.No.326 of 2019 in OS.No.358 of 2019 dated 07-08-2025 and allow the petition to remit back the warrant to the same advocate commissioner to identify the disputed land by identifying the boundary stone and F line on the file of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi.

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 7.8.2025 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi in I.A. No. 326 of 2019 in O.S. No. 358 of 2019.

2. The aforesaid application was filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, seeking to remand back the Advocate Commissioner's warrant to the same Advocate Commissioner to identify the disputed land by identifying the boundary stones and F-line for the subject property.

3. The trial court had dismissed the said application by observing that the FMB sketch is available with clear lenient measurements and therefore, the claim of the petitioners as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application cannot be considered.

4. The trial court has also observed that the suit is of the year 2014 and the trial has not yet commenced. The trial court has also observed that if the petitioners have any objection about the Commissioner's report, they have got the opportunity to examine the Advocate Commissioner and get clarification from him. The trial court has also observed that the Government having demarcated the property and having prepared the FMB sketch, the trial court is not inclined to issue re-warrant to the Advocate Commissioner.

5. This court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the trial court. The trial court has rightly not entertained the application filed by the petitioners as the petitioners have got every right to examine the Advocate Commissioner as a witness for the purpose of unearthing the truth with regard to the boundaries of the property.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this civil revision petition. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.