Madras High Court
N. Anand vs S. Murugesan on 8 September, 2025
CRP No. 4218 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP No. 4218 of 2025
1. N. Anand
2. N.Hariharasudan
3. A.N.Senthil
Petitioners
Vs
1. S. Murugesan
2. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Hasthampatti,
Salem 636 007.
3. The District Collector,
Collectorate Compound,
Salem 636 001.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.06.2024 made in IA No.5
of 2021 in OS No.34 of 2020 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Salem.
For Petitioners: Mr.S.Arjun
For R2 and R3: Mrs.R.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:53:00 pm )
CRP No. 4218 of 2025
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 28.06.2024 made in IA No.5 of 2021 in OS No.34 of 2020 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Salem.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3. The unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred this civil revision petition.
4. The suit in O.S.No.34 of 2020 has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the first defendant/Mr.Murugesan and his men from altering, annexing and levelling the suit "Odai" from its natural way.
5. The plaintiffs have filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in O.S.No.34 of 2020 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the C.P.C., seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to make a local inspection and to note down the physical features of old and new construction of compound wall shown in the suit schedule property and file a report along with the plaint. The Court below, 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:53:00 pm ) CRP No. 4218 of 2025 upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, dismissed the application on the ground that the existence of the alleged suit "Odai" had to be proved by the plaintiffs in the suit by producing the relevant documents and the petitioners could not seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the same, which would imply collection of evidence on the part of the Advocate Commissioner, which cannot be permitted by the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have instituted the present civil revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has not appreciated the admission of the first defendant in his written statement that he has constructed the compound wall, pending suit. Therefore, it is just and necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and conduct local inspection to note down the physical features of old and new construction of compound wall shown in the suit schedule property.
7. It is seen from the records that the Tahsildar, Hasthampatty, Salem and the District Collector Salem have been shown as defendants 2 and 3 in the said suit. The written statement has been filed by the second defendant and the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:53:00 pm ) CRP No. 4218 of 2025 same has also been adopted by the third defendant, wherein, it has been stated that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in law. The scope of order XXVI Rule 9 of the C.P.C., is not to assist the parties to collect the evidence and for the said purpose, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed. The plaintiffs have not furnished proper description of the suit property. The plaintiffs have no right to lay the suit with respect to a land, which is classified as “Water Channel” (Odai) in the Revenue Records. If the first respondent/first defendant had encroached the Odai land, the plaintiffs ought to have informed the authorities concerned to remove such encroachments. As such, both the parties in the suit ie., the plaintiffs and the first defendant had no semblance of right, title or interest over the said “Water Channel”(Odai) and also to indulge in a Tug-of-War with the respect to the said property that vested with the State Government of Tamil Nadu.
8. It is seen from the plaint that the suit schedule property has been described as under:
In sale District Salem SRD, Salem Taluk, Komarasamypatty Village, Town outside patta No.265 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:53:00 pm ) CRP No. 4218 of 2025 in S.Nos.192/1A, Wet land acres 3.64 and in S.No.192/4 with an extent .44 cents and in S.No.193/1 with an extent of .42 cents totalling acres 4.60 cents in this land, Palanivel's property is entire half of the above in the eastern portion of the abovesaid acres 4.60 cents.
For the abovesaid land eastern and southern boundaries the Odai running towards south with a width of about 13 ft and length of 170 ft is the suit Odai and the relief is in respect of the same only.
9. The revision petitioners have marked Exs.P1 to P6. Upon considering the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and the documents relied upon by the revision petitioners, the Court below found that the existence of the alleged suit “Odai” had to be proved by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit by producing relevant documents and the petitioners cannot seek for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the same, which would imply collection of evidence.
5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:53:00 pm ) CRP No. 4218 of 2025
10. It is seen from the records that the plaintiffs as well as the first defendant are claiming certain rights with regard to the alleged Odai. According to the official defendants, neither the plaintiffs nor the first defendant, have right to claim over the suit Odai, since the property is vested with the Government of Tamil Nadu. In such view of the matter, there is no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit properties.
11. In the light of the above discussions, this Court finds that there is no reason warranting to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition.
12. In view of the same, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
08-09-2025 (2/2) Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:53:00 pm ) CRP No. 4218 of 2025 To
1. The II Additional District Munsif, Salem.
2.The Tahsildar Salem, having office Taluk Office Hasthampatti, Salem 007.
3.The District Collector Salem, having office at Collectorate Compound, Salem 1.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:53:00 pm ) CRP No. 4218 of 2025 M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
mfa CRP No. 4218 of 2025 08-09-2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 08:53:00 pm )