Sunderrajan v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-04-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 913 of 2026 and CMP No.4890 of 2026

1. Sunderrajan S/o. Pattusamy, Res. at Kallipadi Village, Srimushnam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its District Collector, District Collector Office, Cuddalore.

2.Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore 3.The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Srimushanam, Cuddalore Dt 4.Village Administrative Officer VAO Office, Kallipadi, Srimushanam, Cuddalore Dt 5.The Special Officer and Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat Union, Kattumannarkoil Respondent(s) 1/4

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.07.2025 made in I.A.No.286 of 2019 in O.S.No.37 of 2019 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil. For Petitioner : Ms.S.Vijaya For Lane Legal For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Anandan Govt.Advocate

ORDER

Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.286 of 2019 in O.S.No.37 of 2019, the plaintiff has preferred the above revision.

2. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.286 of 2019 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property with the help of Surveyor and the same was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the plaintiff has to prove his case on his own records and not by collecting the evidence through the Advocate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff has preferred the above revision.

2/4

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submits that before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against Government Officials, the defendants 1 to 4, stating that the property was in possession of the plaintiff from the year 1988 onwards after he purchased through sale deed dated 30.05.1988, but, the defendants attempted to take the property in order to put up some construction, for which, they are not entitled and the learned counsel also submits that the defendants attempted to encroach the 10 feet mid pathway and therefore, he has come forward with the suit. Now, to prove the physical features as well as the measurement of the property as per right and title, the plaintiff wants to prove the same with the help of Advocate Commissioner, but the trial court failed to give such opportunity.

4. Learned Government Advocate has raised objection in allowing the revision.

5. Considering the relief sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that an opportunity has to be given to the revision petitioner/plaintiff to prove his case by exercising all means and the Report of the Advocate Commissioner also would help the Court to adjudicate the issues. 3/4

T.V.THAMILSELVI.,J sr

6. In the light of the above, the order passed in I.A.No.286 of 2019 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

28.04.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking order To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkovil.

4/4