(1.) THE Revision petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant has projected the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 15.04.2004 in I.A.No.145 of 2004 in A.S.No.30 of 1999 passed by the learned Sub -Judge, Kuzhithurai.
(2.) THE First Appellate Court/learned Sub -Judge, Kuzhithurai while passing orders in I.A.No.145 of 2004 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner) has among other things in paragraph '5' of the order has observed that 'this Petitioner/Appellant filed impleading petition and after notice to the proposed parties and the petition I.A.No.52 of 2004 was allowed and the parties impleaded after carry out amendment and A.P.C being filed, again this petitioner has filed this petition. The above circumstances would clearly shows that the petitioner is not in the intention of prosecuting the appeal. He files petition after petition and after the lapse of more than four years after filing of the appeal and after being posted in the list this petitioner comes forward with this petition stating the respondents are tying to alter the physical features of the property. The above contention cannot be acceptable. If really he is invigilant, he can prosecute the appeal and the appeal can be disposed of and consequently, dismissed the petition as not maintainable with costs.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff submits that the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority namely Sub - Judge, Kuzhithurai in I.A.No.145 of 2004 in A.S.No.30 of 1999 dated 15.04.2004 in dismissing the application praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not sustainable either in law or in facts and further the First Appellate Court has not appreciated that the boundaries of the suit property can be demarcated only with the help of Commissioner by taking aid of Ex.A2 Kanapattam deed along with plan dated 28.02.1953 and also Ex.A12 the Plan.