C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2931 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.03.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2931 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.15132 of 2023 Sankaran ...Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant Vs. M.Preston ...Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 02.09.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.428 of 2021, made on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.P.Vadivel * * * * * ORDER The defendant in O.S.No.428 of 2021, on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, has filed the present revision petition, challenging the order of the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner at the instance of the plaintiff. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2931 of 2023 2.A perusal of the records reveal that the respondent herein as plaintiff had filed the above said suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his easementary right over Plot No.31, which belongs to the defendant. As an alternative prayer, the plaintiff had prayed for injunction not to obstruct the water in the two draining pipes and using the iron gate way facing South to North into Plot No.31 which belongs to the defendant. The plaintiff had further prayed for compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- as damage cost in the right of easement. The defendant has filed the written statement disputing the easementary right of the plaintiff. 3.When the suit was posted for trial, the defendant had filed I.A.No.2 of 2023, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property. The said application was resisted by the defendant. However, the trial Court has proceeded to allow the application on the ground that the suit is based upon easementary right and therefore, appointment of Advocate Commissioner would be helpful in adjudicating the suit. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed. 4.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for filing a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of easementary right. He further contended that even as 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2931 of 2023 per the plaint, 20 years have not lapsed from the date on which the plaintiff is said to have been enjoying the property. He further contended as per the plaint averments, the pipes as well as the steps alleged to have been put up by the plaintiff have been pulled down by the defendant. In such circumstances, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not necessary. 5.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein had contended that the suit is based on easementary right and the alternative prayer is for injunction not to obstruct the two draining pipes and usage of the iron gate way. In such circumstances, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is necessary. 6.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7.The affidavit filed in support of the commissioner's application reveals that the plaintiff wants to note down the two draining pipes put up into the defendant's property and the existence of the iron gate through which the plaintiff has got right of easement. In the counter, the defendant has disputed the availability of the said pipeline and the right of easement through the iron gate. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that these factors cannot be proved by oral or documentary evidence. Only if the Advocate 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2931 of 2023 Commissioner visits the property and notes down the physical features along with the rough sketch, these features could be brought before the Court. In such circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. 8.With the above said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 9.The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 30.11.2025. 06.03.2025 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No RJR To The learned 1st Additional District Munsif Judge, Tirunelveli. Copy to:- The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2931 of 2023 R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J. RJR C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2931 of 2023 06.03.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis