(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 30.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.159 of 2024 in O.S.No.457 of 2018 on the file of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi and set aside the same by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.)

1. Heard Mr.K.Balasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Paranjothi for petitioner, Mr.M.Maran, for contesting Respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 3 to 5.

2. The challenge in this revision is the dismissal of an application filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.159 of 2024 in O.S.No.457 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi.

3. Originally, the suit was presented as O.S.No.272 of 2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Pudukkottai. Thereafter, on account of bifurcation of the territorial jurisdiction, the suit stood transferred and renumbered on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi as O.S.No.457 of 2018. The issue pertains to the existence of a temple for the village deity by name



4. On the side of the plaintiff, it is their claim that the temple is situated in the centre of the land in issue. The existence of the temple is admitted but the location of the temple is disputed by the defendant. In order to clarify this position, the plaintiff took out an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

5. The only plea raised by the defendant was that the application is untenable, as the suit is only for bare injunction.

6. The learned District Munsif, Alangudi, accepted the plea of the defendant that there is a delay in filing the application and consequently dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.

7. Careful perusal of the record shows that the existence of the temple is not in dispute, but only the location of the temple is disputed. The extent of the temple is said to be approximately 5 cents. There is no absolute bar for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner in a suit for permanent injunction (see, K.Dayanand & Another v. P.Sampath Kumar, (2014) SCC Online Hyd 959). The bar for appointment arises when an Advocate Commissioner is sought to be appointed to note as to who is in possession of the property. There is no such dispute as to the temple in existence. The location of the Temple woud assist the Court at the time of passing a decree. In fact, the normal practice is to incorporate the Commissioner's plan as a part of the decree.

8. The claim of the plaintiff is that both the temple and the playground which the defendant asserts exist are going hand-in-hand at least for the past 25 years. Hence, I am of the view that the location of the temple being the matter in issue, the report of an Advocate Commissioner would assist the Court at the time of pronouncing the judgment.

9. When the aspect of delay was pointed out, Mr.K.Balasundaram, readily concedes that there is a delay, but urges that need not stand in the way for the Court in appointing the Commissioner. The Commissioner can be appointed soon after the suit is moved or any time before the judgment passed in the suit. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Insofar as the delay is concerned, the Court could have allowed the application on payment of cost by plaintiff to the defendants.

11. Mr.M.Maran reports that the suit is posted for arguments tomorrow (13.03.2026).

12. The Court shall issue a warrant to the Advocate Commissioner and give appropriate directions to the Commissioner to submit a report within a period of two weeks from today. Once the report is received and in case there are no objections, the Court can receive the report as evidence in the suit and pass appropriate orders. In addition to the payment of Advocate Commissioner fee, the plaintiff shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the defendant.

13. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.