RULE GOVINDEN Vs. CHANDRA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Cheyyar in I.A. No. 185/1995 in O.S. No. 225/1994.

(2.) The petitioner in the said I.A., which was filed by the revision petitioner third defendant is for appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of inspecting the property with the help of a surveyor and to note down the physical features thereon and to submit a report with plan. In his petition, the petitioner has stated that the Commissioner appointed by the Court has submitted a report with plan with correct particulars and that without assistance of a Surveyor, he has put the Survey No. of each and every item of the property and that the Commissioner has shown the existence of a channel according to his desire when there is no channel existing. In the absence of any knowledge to the Survey Nos. of the property is concerned, the Commissioner has noted the existence of a channel between S.No. 264/3 and 264/9 and it is not known how he fixed it. Unless the warrant is issued to a fresh Commissioner, to inspect the property with the help of a Surveyor and submit a report, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

(3.) The respondent resisted the same by contending that the allegation that the Commissioner cannot give the Survey Nos. without the assistance of a Surveyor is not correct. The respondent has resisted the appointment of Commissioner and after enquiry alone, the Court has appointed the Commissioner. The petitioner ought to have asked for inspection of the property by the Commissioner with the help of a Surveyor and since he has not asked for the same, the present request of the petitioner for appointing a fresh Commissioner to inspect the property with the help of a Surveyor is not tenable and it is only to drag on the proceeding. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.