S. GANESAN Vs. GOMATHY KANAPPAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fourth defendant in the suit is the petitioner. The suit was filed by the first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition for declaration of title to the suit property. Pending the suit, a Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the suit property on 16.04.1994 and submitted a report. The suit was thereafter decreed in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal in A.S.No.33 of 2001 before the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. Pending appeal, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.21 of 2002, seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to find out the actual extent of the land, which was the subject matter of the suit. The said application was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, by order dated 27.03.2002. It is against this order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a fresh cause of action arose after the report of the first Commissioner and an application for seeking for appointment of second Commissioner was filed on the basis of fresh cause of action. The learned counsel further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if a Commissioner is appointed and the actual extent of land is ascertained by the said Commissioner.

(3.) Mr. R. Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the application is only to prolong the suit and when the earlier Commissioner submitted his report, the same was not objected. Hence, the application for appointment of another Commissioner, when the appeal is pending, is only to protract the litigation. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.