Madras High Court
Muthammal @ Saroja vs Muthukumar on 11 November, 2025
C.R.P.No.74 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 11.11.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.No.74 of 2024 and
C.M.P.No.290 of 2024
1. Muthammal @ Saroja
2. Senthilkumar .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. Muthukumar
2. Manikandan
3. Angammal .. Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 21.08.2023 made in
I.A.No.139 of 2016 in O.S.No.139 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Senthamangalam.
For petitioners : Mr.M.Kulaindaivelu
For respondents : Mr.I.Abrar Md. Abdullah
*****
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Senthamangalam, allowing the application filed by 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm ) C.R.P.No.74 of 2024 the respondents 1 and 2 seeking to scrap the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner.
2 The petitioners herein filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to take cart and cattle through the suit cart track shown as L, L1 and L2 and for consequential injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the alleged right to use the suit cart track.
3 Pending the suit, at the instance of the petitioners, an Advocate commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the suit track and he also filed a report in I.A.No.959 of 2015 on 23.11.2015.
4 The respondents herein filed an objection to the said report on 29.12.2015 and thereafter instant application has been filed seeking to scrap the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the said prayer, it was stated by the respondents that the Advocate Commissioner failed to carry the commission work diligently and therefore 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm ) C.R.P.No.74 of 2024 there are lots of infirmities in the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner as pointed out by the respondents in the objections filed by them. Therefore the trial Court ordered the said application and scrapped the Advocate Commissioner's report. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
5 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents in their affidavit filed in support of the application, seeking scrapping of the Advocate Commissioner's report, did not specify the infirmity in the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, warranting scrapping of the report. Therefore the impugned order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable.
6 Learned counsel for the respondents by drawing attention of this Court to the objections filed by the respondents to the Advocate commission's report, submitted that the Advocate Commissioner mentioned width of the cart track only in certain points namely XYZ. However in number of places, the width of the cart track is only 1.5 meters. The Advocate Commissioner 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm ) C.R.P.No.74 of 2024 filed the report as if the suit property is a cart track. However, it is the case of the defendants that the suit property is only pathway and the width of the suit property in the entire extent has not been properly measured.
7 From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, it is clear that the main controversy in the suit is regarding the character of the suit property whether it is cart track or pathway. The Advocate Commissioner in his report mentioned the width of the track only in XYZ portion and he has not measured the width of the cart track throughout. It is stated that in number of places the width of the cart track is only 1.5 meters.
8 Therefore this Court feels warrant shall be reissued to the Advocate Commissioner to revisit the suit property and measure the width of the cart track through out. Merely because the Advocate Commissioner failed to mention the width of the cart track to the entire length of cart track, the entire report need not be scrapped.
9 Hence the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm ) C.R.P.No.74 of 2024 The trial Court is directed to reissue the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner with a direction to measure the width of the cart track throughout the suit track and file a detailed report.
10 With these directions, this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.11.2025 Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No cgi To The District Munsif, Senthamangalam.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm ) C.R.P.No.74 of 2024 S.SOUNTHAR, J.
cgi C.R.P.No.74 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.290 of 2024 11.11.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:07:18 pm )