L. NACHIAPPAN Vs. ANTHONYMUTHU UDAYAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Review Application is at the instance of the petitioner in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No. 2340 of 2013 and the prayer is to review and recall the order dated 16 June, 2015.

(2.) THIS Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner by the Trial Court. It is the said order which is sought to be reviewed at the instance of the unsuccessful revision petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the schedule to the plaint, the petitioner has not disclosed the extent of property in his possession. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner purchased the first schedule property having 3 1/2 cents which is an undivided property. Similarly, he purchased 14 cents and the same is shown as second schedule property. The petitioner is claiming more extent than he is actually entitled to. According to the learned counsel, the respondents have disputed the boundaries and the re -survey number in their written statement. The learned counsel contended that the plaint is silent with respect to the boundary of the property and the total extent in the possession of petitioner. Finally, it is the contention of the learned counsel that appointment of Advocate Commissioner would clear the doubt and it would be in the interest of both the parties.