(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 10.9.2009, made in I.A.No.821 of 2009, in O.S.No.342 of 2008, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Ambattur.
(2.) IT has been stated that the plaintiffs had filed the suit, in O.S.No.342 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, praying for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from preventing the plaintiffs ingress and egress to their property, through Survey No.151/1A1A1A. IT had been claimed that the plaintiffs property could be approached only through the land, in Survey No.151/1A1A1A.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that an advocate commissioner cannot be appointed for local investigation, where the possession of the property sought to be inspected and investigated, is in dispute. He had further stated that in a suit for permanent injunction the factum of possession cannot be ascertained by the advocate commissioner. He had placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions. 1) Chinnathambi and others Vs. Anjalai (2006(5) CTC 494) and 2) Meenakshi Vs. Vennila and another (2008(5) CTC 181) THE learned counsel had also stated that the defendant in the suit has to substantiate his claims by letting in oral, as well as documentary evidence. However, he cannot request for the appointment of an advocate commissioner to go on a fact finding mission, for collecting evidence in support of his case.