M. CHANDRAN vs M.T. Eganadhan

2026:MHC:4544
CRP No. 6952 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6952 of 2026
and CMP No. 29921 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012482952026}
M. Chandran
No.47, Nadu Street
Sorakayapet Village and Post
Pallipattu Taluk, Thiruvallur District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. M.T. Eganadhan
No.47, Nadu Street
Sorakayapet Village and Post
Pallipattu Taluk,
Thiruvallur District
2. M. E. Parvathi
W/o. M.T. Eganadhan,
No.47, Nadu Street
Sorakayapet Village and Post
Pallipattu Taluk,
Thiruvallur District
3. M. E. Dhamodharan
S/o. M.T. Eganadhan,
No.47, Nadu Street,
Sorakayapet Village And Post,
Pallipattu Taluk,
Thiruvallur District
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the order dated 08-09-2026 passed in I.A.No.2/2026 in
O.S.No.34/2024 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Pallipattu by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

2026:MHC:4544
CRP No. 6952 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr. G. Bharadwaj
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.09.2026 passed in I.A.No.2
of 2026 in O.S.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallipattu, wherein the application filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C., for appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner to measure the property with the help of the Surveyor
and to ascertain the correct measurements of the ‘B’ Schedule property and its
existence within the ‘A’ Schedule property and submit a report along with a
sketch, came to be dismissed by the Court below.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the
materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the
order passed by the Court below.
3.The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2024 seeking
for the relief of declaration to declare the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over
the ‘B’ Schedule property and for a mandatory injunction directing the
defendants to remove the superstructure raised in the ‘B’ Schedule property and
to deliver possession of the same.
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

2026:MHC:4544
CRP No. 6952 of 2026
4.The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2026 for
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in order to measure the entire
property and ascertain the extent to which the wall has been constructed in the
property belonging to the petitioner/plaintiff.
5.The Court below has dismissed this application on the ground that the
application has been filed for collecting evidence and that the burden of proof is
upon the plaintiff to prove and establish the right and title over the ‘B’ Schedule
property and it cannot be done by way of a report of the Advocate
Commissioner.
6.This Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the Court
below. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, mandatory
injunction and possession. The right and title claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff
have to be first established by letting oral and documentary evidence.
7.It has now become a trend before the Trial Courts across Tamil Nadu to
first move an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, obtain
the report and thereafter develop the case based on that report. This procedure
adopted is erroneous. The Court has to keep the application for appointment of
an Advocate Commissioner pending unless there is an urgency to make such an
appointment. The Court has to record the oral and documentary evidence let in
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

2026:MHC:4544
CRP No. 6952 of 2026
by both sides. Thereafter, on assessing the evidence let in by both sides, if the
Court feels that the report of the Advocate Commissioner will help the Court to
effectively dispose of the suit, at that point of time, the Court has to appoint an
Advocate Commissioner and seek for a report. The report of the Advocate
Commissioner is another piece of evidence which has to be relied upon by the
Court more as a corroborative piece of evidence rather than deciding the entire
case based only on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. If this procedure
is followed, the Court will be able to make substantial progress in the suit by
reserving the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner at the end. This will
also avoid filing of unnecessary Civil Revision Petitions before this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. More than 40% of the cases filed before
this Court and coming up for admission relates to the appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner. If such Civil Revision Petitions are entertained, it
results in the matters being kept pending before the Trial Courts and there is a
delay in disposing of the suit.
8.It will be more appropriate if the Trial Courts keep the above
observations in mind while dealing with applications for appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner.
9.In the case in hand, the petitioner/plaintiff has to establish the right and
title over the suit property by letting oral and documentary evidence. If that is
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

2026:MHC:4544
CRP No. 6952 of 2026
done, the next stage would be to establish the encroachment made over the suit
property. For this purpose, the Court has to take into consideration the evidence
that is let in by the defendants as well. On assessing the evidence on both sides,
if the Court finds that the report of an Advocate Commissioner is required to
decide the extent of encroachment made in the suit property, that will be the
appropriate time to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and obtain the report.
10.The above observations shall be kept in mind by the Court below
while proceeding with the suit with respect to the appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner in this case. The order passed by the Court below does not
warrant the interference of this Court.
11.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of in the
above terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
SSR
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

2026:MHC:4544
CRP No. 6952 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
SSR
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallipattu.
CRP No. 6952 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )