K.SIVAKUMAR Vs. MARAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the revision petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in dismissing the application filed by him under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the second time, the present revision is preferred.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that earlier an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the suit properties in I.A.No.387 of 2013; however in that application he was set exparte. According to him, the said Commissioner without even issuing notice, has inspected the suit property and filed his report and plan. Hence, the present application in I.A.No.1693 of 2014 in O.S.No.88 of 2013 was filed seeking to re-issue of Commission. However, the said application was dismissed vide the impugned order on the ground that when the petitioner has chosen to file a petition to set aside the exparte order along with the written statement, has not filed any objection to the report and plan submitted by the earlier Commissioner.