N VENKATESAN Vs. V MUTHUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is preferred against the order of Principal District Munsif, Bhavani, dated 13-03-2003 made in I. A. No. 92 of 2003 in O. S. No. 356 of 2002, dismissing the petition filed under Or. 26 R. 9 C. P. C. refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The Defendants 2 to 6 are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) THE relevant facts for disposal of this Revision Petition could briefly be stated thus:-

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the dismissal of the Application, the Revision Petitioners/defendants 2 to 6 have preferred this Revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has contended that the earlier Commissioner has only noted the physical features, which may not be sufficient to answer the contentious points. The learned counsel has further submitted that measuring the suit properties with survey plan would be of great assistance in resolving the dispute. Drawing the attention of the Court to the Commissioner's Report and Plan, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that in the absence of dividing line between 'a' and 'b' schedule properties and for effective determination of the boundary dispute raised by the parties, the Commissioner has to be appointed to measure the suit properties with the help of the surveyor. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has relied upon the decision reported in (2000) 3 M. L. J. 84 (S. C.) (SHREEPAT Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD AND OTHERS ).