A.C. Murugesan & Ors. vs The District Forest Officer & Anr.

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 09.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.16 of 2019 on the file of the Fourth Additional District Munsif Court, Salem (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for the appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property, to note down the physical features and furnish a report along with the plan came to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.

The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the eviction notice as null and void and for a consequential permanent injunction. When the said suit was at the stage of commencement of the trial, the said application has been filed by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property, note down its physical features and file a detailed report along with plan on the ground that the defendants are denying the existence of the suit village and that they claim it to be a reserve forest.

However, the Court below dismissed the said application by the impugned order on the ground that there were no averments in the written statement or in the counter filed to the said application regarding the denial of the suit village, that what was pleaded was that the suit village was declared as a reserve forest, that it would be a matter for arguments and that therefore, it was not necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner. Aggrieved by that, the above revision has been filed before this Court.

In the considered view of this Court, there is no real dispute regarding the occupation of the suit property, which, according to the petitioners/plaintiffs, is a village. The defendants have taken a stand that the suit village was declared as a reserve forest. Therefore, the scope of enquiry before the Court below is as to whether such declaration as a reserve forest is sustainable and the eviction notice is illegal. To consider the said issue, a report from the advocate commissioner is not really required. The Court below has rightly rendered a finding that the defendants are not denying the existence of the suit village and what has to be decided in the said suit is as to whether declaration of the suit village as a reserve forest is sustainable. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court.

In the light of the above discussions, the above civil revision petition is dismissed by leaving it open to the petitioners/ plaintiffs to raise all the grounds regarding the tenability of treating the suit village as a reserve forest, when, according to the petitioners/plaintiffs, it is only a village in occupation and the same shall be considered independently by the Court below on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the order passed in this revision will not have any bearing when the said suit is dealt with on merits. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.