Madras HC Orders Hearing On Ex-Parte Commissioner In Tiruppur Property Suit, Citing Delays From Report-Driven Litigation

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court’s ex parte appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in the injunction suit should stand without hearing the petitioner and the plaintiff on the application.

The court held

The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to afford the petitioner and the first respondent an opportunity to be heard and pass final orders on I.A. No. 480 of 2026 within four weeks of receiving a copy of the High Court’s order, bearing in mind the Court’s observations.

It also directed

The High Court did not finally determine whether a Commissioner should be appointed.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The first respondent, as plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 184 of 2026 seeking a permanent injunction and applied under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

¶ 1, 4–5 · pp. 3–4

The trial court allowed the application ex parte on 27 July 2026.

¶ 1, 4–5 · pp. 3–4

The petitioner, the fifth defendant, challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 1, 4–5 · pp. 3–4

The first respondent stated that the petitioner had also filed O.S. No. 147 of 2026 concerning the same property, in which a Commissioner had been appointed and a report filed.

¶ 1, 4–5 · pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court’s ex parte appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in the injunction suit should stand without hearing the petitioner and the plaintiff on the application.

¶ 1, 4, 8 · pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner should be reconsidered in light of the proper purpose and evidentiary role of a commission.

¶ 6–8 · pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC provides for appointment of a commission for local investigation where the court considers it necessary or proper to elucidate a matter in dispute; the appointment is to assist the court in effectively disposing of the suit.

¶ 1, 4, 6 · pp. 3–4

The Commissioner’s report is a corroborative piece of evidence and does not replace the evidence adduced by the parties.

¶ 1, 4, 6 · pp. 3–4

The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 1, 4, 6 · pp. 3–4

No judicial precedents were cited.

¶ 1, 4, 6 · pp. 3–4

04Reasoning

The High Court observed that parties were increasingly seeking commissions at the outset and then developing their cases around the resulting reports, a practice that could delay suits and burden the court system.

¶ 6 · p. 4

In this case, both sides had obtained ex parte orders appointing Commissioners in proceedings concerning the same property.

¶ 5, 7 · pp. 4–5

Rather than determine the application without hearing the affected parties, the Court directed the trial court to hear the petitioner and the plaintiff and decide the application, keeping in mind that a commission should assist the court and that its report is only corroborative.

¶ 6–8 · pp. 4–5