JAGADESWARI Vs. KANDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.(PD) No. 3646 of 2013 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.08.2013 made in I.A. No. 738 of 2013 in O.S. No. 297 of 2006. C.R.P. (PD) No. 3647 of 2013 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.08.2013 made in I.A. No. 740 of 2013 in O.S. No. 295 of 2006.

(2.) C.R.P. (PD) No. 4164 of 2013 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.08.2013 made in I.A. No. 739 of 2013 in O.S. No. 293 of 2006.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the respondents herein as plaintiffs have filed three different suits for specific performance against the revision petitioners/defendants. The defendants raised the plea that the sale agreement is a forged one. During the pendency of the suits, the plaintiffs/respondents filed applications under order 26 Rule 9 CPC in I.A. Nos. 738, 740 and 739 of 2013 for appointment of Advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the petition mentioned property and to direct the commissioner to file the report along with plan. The Trial Court after considering the arguments advanced by both sides, appointed the Advocate Commissioner against which the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.