S R KUMARASWAMI Vs. SELLAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He filed the suit against the respondents herein and five others in O.S.No.71 of 1995 for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property by forming a pathway. Earlier, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit property and the report was filed by him. Having not satisfied with the report of the Commissioner, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.1376 of 2002 to re-open the matter and to re-issue the warrant directing the Advocate Commissioner to make further inspection and to file the report. This has been dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(2.) According to the counsel for the petitioner, during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.71 of 1995, the petitioner filed I.A.No.937 of 1997 for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to verify whether any pathway exists in the suit property as alleged by the defendants, the respondents herein and the Advocate Commissioner without prior notice to the petitioner inspected the property along with the Surveyor and filed the report. Even though the objection was filed to the report of the Advocate Commissioner by the petitioner, the application has been closed and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file another application in I.A.No.1376 of 2002 to re-open the matter and to re-issue the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the affidavit and other records filed by the petitioner.