(1.) THE defendants 1, 3 and 4 are the revision petitioners and the revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. THE plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.132 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge (Training) and Additional Sub-Judge II, Thiruvanamalai for specific performance of a registered sale agreement dated 29.05.2003, stated to have been entered between plaintiff and defendants and also directing the defendants to receive the balance of Rs.12,984/- and execute the sale deed, apart from delivery of possession also alternatively for refund of Rs.4 lakhs with the interest of 12% per annum, stated to have been received by the defendants under the registered sale agreement dated 29.05.2003 etc.
(2.) THE defendants have filed the written statement denying the execution of the sale agreement with free consent and stating that taking advantage of old age of the first plaintiff such signatures were obtained. THE plaintiff has filed I.A.No.2 of 2006 in the said suit under order 26 Rule 9 r/w 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property with the help of the surveyor and submit a report with rough plan and survey plan and certificate of surveyor with regard to the extent available. For filing the said petition the plaintiff has given the reason that even though the sale agreement mentions the total extent of the property 2622 sq.ft., as on date the said extent is not available and only 1444 sq.ft. measuring East-west 74 ft. and North-south 19 ft. is available. THE plaintiff also would further state that in the suit he has restricted his prayer only in respect of the available extent for the proportionate consideration, since the defendants have denied the execution, the Advocate Commissioner must be appointed to measure the suit property mainly with regard to the extent available.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the order passed by the learned Trial Judge.