K.R.Ravi vs K.Kalapana
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP.No.6983 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6983 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012322662026}
K.R.Ravi
S/o Late K.G.Rajendiran,
Permanently Residing at
Kammavarampatti Village,
Ulli Village Madura,
Gudiyattam Taluk,
Vellore District & also
temporarily Residing at
No.2-61/100, Gandhi Road,
ZuZu Vadi, Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District
...Petitioner
Vs
K.Kalpana, W/o E.Kumar,
Residing at Kammavarampatti Village,
Ulli Village Madura, Gudiyattam
Taluk, Vellore District.
...Respondent
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India
against the order dated 27.4.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
CRP.No.6983 of 2026
O.S.No.131 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Gudiyattam, Vellore District.
For Petitioner: Mr.I.Calvin Jones
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
The Constitution of India against the order dated 27.4.2026 passed
in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.131 of 2024 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District (for short, the Court
below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for
appointment of an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9
of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to measure the B schedule
property, to note down its physical features with the help of a
surveyor and to file a report along with a plan, came to be
dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
CRP.No.6983 of 2026
available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit
seeking for the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent
injunction. The specific case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that there
was a partition among the parties, that the respondent/defendant
sold her properties along with 1/4th share in the B schedule
property to one Mr.Kothandan and that she did not have any right or
title over the B schedule property. When an attempt was made by
the respondent/defendant to put up a construction in the B schedule
property, the said application came to be filed seeking to appoint an
advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the B
schedule property, measure the same and submit a report.
5. But, the Court below dismissed the said application on the
ground that it was filed to collect evidence and that the same was
beyond the scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC.
6. The specific case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the
respondent/defendant sold her properties along with her 1/4th share
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
CRP.No.6983 of 2026
in the B schedule property; that an attempt was made by the
respondent/defendant to put up a construction in the common
property, over which, she did not have any right; and that in order
to ascertain the physical features of the B schedule property and
measure the same, the said application came to be filed.
7. This Court has been repeatedly holding that the report of an
advocate commissioner would only enable the Courts to effectively
dispose of the suit while considering the relief sought for. Unless and
otherwise there is an urgency in dealing with the application for
appointment of an advocate commissioner, the Court must keep it
pending and allow both the parties to let in evidence. After the
parties let in evidence, the Court must assess the evidence and see
if the report of the advocate commissioner is necessary for the Court
to effectively dispose of the suit.
8. In the case in hand, the parties are relying on certain
documents and therefore, the parties must be first allowed to let in
oral and documentary evidence and thereafter, the Court must
consider the appointment of an advocate commissioner if the report
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
CRP.No.6983 of 2026
is required to corroborate the findings of the Court below. The
proceedings cannot commence with the report of an advocate
commissioner and it cannot be built on the foundation of the report
of the advocate commissioner. That is exactly what has been
attempted to be done in this case.
9. In the light of the above discussions, the Court below shall
proceed further to record the evidence on both sides and finally shall
take a call as to whether an advocate commissioner has to be
appointed to support its findings in the said suit and consider the
report as a piece of evidence. This observation will sufficiently take
care of the grievance expressed by the petitioner.
10. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of in the
above terms while sustaining the order dated 27.4.2026 passed in
I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.131 of 2024 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.
05-11-2026
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
CRP.No.6983 of 2026
To
The District Munsif Court,
Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
RS
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )
CRP.No.6983 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
CRP.No.6983 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 12:43:00 pm )