RAJU Vs. EASWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue that arises for consideration in the instant revision petition is regarding the ambit and scope of under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present civil revision petition is that the civil suit in O.S.No.71 of 2009 was filed by the respondents praying for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the cart track situated in R.S.No.142 of Patlur Village. During the pendency of the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the revision petitioner who has filed a report and plan. Later it appears that the 1st plaintiff in the original suit had died and his legal heirs were brought on record. It was the case of the respondents in the present petition that subsequent to filing of the suit, the revision petitioner has obliterated the suit cart track and converted it into cultivable land.

(3.) Since there appears to be obliteration of the suit cart track, the respondents have filed a fresh application in I.A.No.131 of 2012 in O.S.No.71 of 2009 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property and the obliterated portion over the suit cart track.