ELAMVAZHUDI Vs. SAKUNTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 28.03.2016 passed in IA.No.22 of 2016 in IA.No.118 of 2009 in AS.No.22 of 2008 by the Additional Sub Court, Villupuram.

(2.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioner herein is the Respondent in the appeal and the Defendant in OS.No.351 of 2005 and that the Respondent is the Appellant in the appeal and the Plaintiff in the said suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title, for possession and for future mesne profits. Since the suit was dismissed, the Defendant has filed the appeal, in which, the Plaintiff has filed IA.No.118 of 2009, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property. By order dated, 07.10.2009, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the suit property was inspected on 11.01.2014 and the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner were filed on 23.02.2016. The present application has been filed by the Defendant to reopen IA.No.118 of 2009 to consider his objection to the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and to scrap the said report and plan. In and by the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that since the report and plan were filed after two years from the date of inspection, the court below ought to have refused to receive the same and that the court below erred in closing the application and hence, Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel has placed reliance on (Veppanathar Vs. Kaliappan,2000 1 LW 893 ).