M.ALI BABA Vs. SELVAM THAOL METHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE epitome and the long and short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The learned counsel for the revision petitioners / plaintiffs would, avoiding discursive narration, pithily and precisely, put forth and set forth his case thus:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that since defendants 1 to 3 themselves had contended that unless an Advocate Commissioner identified the suit property, the question of proceeding further would be a well-neigh impossibility, and the Lower Court should have ordered such appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the second respondent / third defendant would clarify by pointing out that even when originally the suit was filed, the first application in I.A.No.129 of 2002 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was filed and it was dismissed as not pressed. Subsequently, the plaint was got amended in respect of the description of the property in the schedule of the plaint. There was also impleadment of new parties. Thereafter, an application in I.A.No.452 of 2005 was filed for the same purpose of getting an Advocate Commissioner appointed. Even though the Advocate Thiru.Thirukannan was appointed as Advocate Commissioner, subsequently that application was also endorsed as not pressed and it was dismissed. Thereafter, the suit itself was dismissed for default. Wherefore the Lower Court correctly dismissed the subsequent I.A. No.53 of 2012 which was filed by the plaintiffs frivolously and it was dismissed warranting no interference in revision.