T C DHARMALINGAM Vs. S CHINNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, allowing an application in I. A. No. 847/2006 for appointment of Advocate commissioner is the subject matter of challenge.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also looking into the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the order of the lower Court appointing the Advocate Commissioner, has got to be sustained. In the instant case, it was a suit for bare injunction. It is also true that originally, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note the physical features, and he also filed the report. It has also been considered by the trial Court. The only contention that was raised by the first respondent/appellant before the appellate Court was that an Advocate commissioner has got to be appointed for the reason that though he claimed injunction in respect of the channel having a width of 4 feet, the relief was granted only in respect of the channel having a width of 2 " feet; that the mistake that has crept in was that the defendants'property was not properly measured, and had it been measured, the availability of the channel and its width namely 4 feet, would have been made clear; but, it was not done, and under the circumstances, Advocate Commissioner was to be appointed.