← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/235/2025disposed of

South India Shelters Pvt Ltd v. R. Kuppusamy @ R. Kuppusamy Mudaliar (Died) 1. K. Ramasamy

2026-06-10Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP NO. 235 OF 2025 and CMP NO. 1555 OF 2025

1. South India Shelters Pvt Ltd A Company incorporates under the Companies Act, 1956, Rep. by its Director Najeep Hussain, S/o. Anwar Hussain, having its registered office at No.14, Gulmohar Avenue, Velachery Main Road, Guindy - 032.

Appellant(s) Vs

1. R. Kuppusamy @ R. Kuppusamy Mudaliar (died) 1. K. Ramasamy 2.K. Bhuvaneshwari 3.Manjula Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 22.04.2024 passed in IA No.254 of 2016 in OS No.202 of 2015 by the Additional District Judge at Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.SK.Rahul Vivek for Mr.R.Vasudevan For Respondent(s):

Mr. K. V. Babu

ORDER

The civil revision petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Additional District Court, Kanchipuram District at

Chengalpattu in I.A. No. 254 of 2016 in O.S. No. 202 of 2015.

2. The aforesaid order was passed by the trial Court, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. The apprehension of the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, in this civil revision petition, is that due to certain observations made by the trial Court with regard to the registered documents standing in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner's interest will be affected in the main suit.

3. Admittedly, the interlocutory application, viz., I.A. No. 254 of 2016, was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs only for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. However, as seen from the impugned order, unnecessary observations have been made by the trial Court with regard to the documents relied upon by the petitioner in support of their title. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said observations, which, according to them, will affect their interest in the main suit.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would also submit that it would suffice if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed only to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. In view of the said

submission, the unnecessary observations made by the trial Court with regard to the registered documents relied upon by the petitioner/defendant in support of their title are being expunged.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit, on instructions, that the petitioner also has no objection for the Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by the trial Court to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property.

6. In view of the same, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of by directing the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court, under the impugned order, to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property with the help of the Taluk Surveyor and submit a report to the trial Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While deciding the main suit, the other observations made in the impugned order, which may be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, shall not be looked into by the trial Court. No costs.

10-06-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab To The Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

ab 10-06-2026 (2/2)