SARASWATHI Vs. CHINNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises at the instance of the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

(2.) O.S.No.24 of 2021 has been presented by the plaintiff seeking for the relief of declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and subordinates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule mentioned property.

(3.) On service of summons, the defendants entered appearance through counsel and have filed a detailed written statement. Thereafter, issues have been framed and the matter was listed for trial. At that stage, the defendants who are four in number, took out an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner for local inspection of the suit schedule mentioned property and the properties in and around the petition mentioned properties and to file a report. The plaintiff filed a counter to this application stating that the defendants are not entitled to take this plea as there is no dispute in the title of the properties. She would also plead that the plan and report if filed by the advocate commissioner will not be relevant nor would help the Court to come to the conclusion with respect to the matter in issue viz., whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property and whether she is entitled for the declaratory relief. The learned trial Judge, on considering the arguments of the respective parties, came to a conclusion that there is no necessity for appointment of an advocate commissioner and dismissed the application in and by way of his order dtd. 29/9/2022. Aggrieved by the same the present revision has been filed.