CRP No. 1053 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 1053 of 2026 1. Parvathi (Died), 1.Murugan Vada Anadappattu Village, Kilipattu Post, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District. 2. Selvi W/o. Murugan, Vada Anadappattu Village, Kilipattu Post, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Subramani S/o. Muthaiya Naidu, Kilipattu Post, Vada Anadappattu Village, Tiruvannamalai District. 2.Parasuraman S/o. Perumal Naidu, Kilipattu Post, Vada Anadappattu Village, Tiruvannamalai District. 3.Srinivasan S/o. Perumal Naidu, Kilipattu Post, Vada Anadappattu Village, Tiruvannamalai District. Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1053 of 2026 CRP No. 1053 of 2026 PRAYER To set aside the fair and final order dated 18.11.2022, made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.212 of 2014 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai and thus render justice. CRP No. 1053 of 2026 For Petitioner(s): B.Jawahar B.Yoga Priya P.Ruthistra For Respondent: ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and final order dated 18.11.2022, made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.212 of 2014 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The brief facts of the case: The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.212 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai, seeking revisit by the Advocate Commisioner with the help of surveyor and to measure schedule A, B and C properties and to submit a report. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Advocate Commissioner had measured the property without fixing the boundary stones and also filed their objection as early as in the year 2016 itself. However, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1053 of 2026 Trial Court failed to consider the same. Hence, he prays to allow this petition. 4. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioners alleged that while surveying the suit property there is no survey stone available on ground. Hence, the petitioner filed the petition seeking revisit by the Advocate Commissioner with the help of surveyor and to measure schedule A, B and C properties and to submit a report. However, on perusal of records, it shows that the properties was already measured with the help of surveyor. Near about 8 years later the petitioner has come forward with application. Considering the fact, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition. The petitioners are directed to work out their remedy before the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Pending petition, if any, is /are closed. 03-03-2026 pbl Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To 1. The Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The Section Officer, V. R Section, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 1053 of 2026 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. pbl CRP No. 1053 of 2026 03-03-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis