CHINNATHAMBI Vs. ANJALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition is directed against the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners/defendants submitted that the Lower Court ought not to have appointed an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of finding out the extent in which the disputed parties are in possession, particularly in a suit for permanent injunction. Inviting my attention to paragraph No. 7 of the order, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Court below has accepted the legal position that an Advocate Commissioner should not be appointed to find out who is in possession of the land, but at the same time, in the latter portion of the order, for the very same purpose, ordered appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which is self-contradictory. He further submitted that to find out who is in possession of the property is essentially the function of the Court, that an Advocate Commissioner should not be appointed. In this context, it is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the order. Paragraph 7 reads as follows :