KRISHNARAJ Vs. SUGUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 11.2.2010, made in I.A. No. 265 of 2009, in O.S. No. 124 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam.

(2.) Even though various grounds have been raised in the present civil revision petition, the main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners is that the order, dated 11.2.2010, passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, is cryptic in nature. She has also submitted that no opportunity had been given to the Petitioners before the impugned order, dated 11.2.2010, had been passed.

(3.) By the order, dated 11.2.2010, the PrincipalSubordinate Judge, Tindivanam, had stated, after considering the objections raised by the Petitioners herein, that the appointment of an advocate commissioner is necessary to note the physical features of the property in question, to arrive at a fair decision, in respect of the disputes arising for his consideration.