BINOJ KUMAR M.V. Vs. VASUMATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is one for declaration of title over the plaint A schedule property and for recovery of possession of the plaint B schedule property. There is also a prayer to set aside the execution proceedings in the compromise decree in O.S.No.474 of 1996.

(2.) THE request of the petitioner/plaintiff to depute an Advocate Commissioner to identify the plaint schedule property has been turned down by the court below. It is so done by the impugned order on the premise that there is already a plan (Ext.B1) in O.SNo.474 of 1996.

(3.) A reading of the written statement reveals that there is an identity dispute and the property has to be measured and located. I do not find any valid ground to refuse the deputation on an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection in a suit of this nature.