SURESH Vs. VIJAYKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-11-2000 passed on I.A. III in O.S. No. 146/95 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Sedam, by allowing the I.A. filed by the first respondent under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to appoint the Court Commissioner for local investigation in order to ascertain the correct measurement of the disputed lane.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed objections to the said application.

(3.) THE principal submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Court below erred in allowing the application filed by the first respondent to appoint the Commissioner as there is no compelling reason much less justification. The Court below failed to note that a Commissioner has to be appointed to ascertain correct position of the suit property only when there is ambiguity or the evidence on record does not assist the Court in coming to a right conclusion. Further, he pointed out that in the instant case, it is significant to note that the evidence has not yet commenced. There is no material before the Court so as to warrant the appointment of Commissioner to clarify any situation. To say the least, the application is pre-mature. Hence, he prayed that the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.