PUSHPARAJ Vs. CHELLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent / plaintiff filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the same was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this civil revision petition. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners and the respondents.

(2.) The respondent / plaintiff, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, has stated that there are 19 alphisia trees (soft wood trees), in the disputed area, which are in his possession i.e. (after excluding 'GHI' portion). Now, the existence of alphisia trees in the suit property, is disputed by the defendants in this suit. So, a Commissioner may be appointed in this suit, to report whether alphisia trees are available in the suit property and to locate them. Since the defendants objected to the very existence of the alphisia trees, a commissioner has to be appointed in this suit to ascertain the said fact and also to cut and remove the said trees in the presence of the commissioner.

(3.) The petitioners/defendants resisted the application by filing a counter, wherein, they have stated that the commissioner already appointed in this case has not located the property, as per the plan in the earlier partition deed, dated 30.11.1124-M.E due to the defendants in the suit property. The commissioner has also not shown the area due to the defendants 2 to 6 in the plan filed by him. The defendants have strong objection to the report and the plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner and there is absolutely no necessity for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. It is also stated that the alphisia trees will stand at least for 50 years and only to prolong the suit, this application has been filed. The trial court has not adverted to any of the averments made in the affidavit or in the counter and it has simply passed an order, "Both side heard. Petition allowed."