A. MEGANATHAN Vs. S. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the suit is for recovery of possession. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner filed an application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner filed this revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit is for recovery of possession and the petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is filed in respect of possession. In other words, a reference is made to find out the encroachment in the suit schedule property. Indirectly if the fact regarding the encroachment is found, then it amounts to assessing the possession of the respective parties. The primary principle regarding the possession is that the parties claiming possession has to prove before the court that he is in possession. The Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to prove regarding the possession of the property by the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the petition by stating that the petition seeking Advocate Commissioner is filed in order to identify the property and to find out the extent of encroachment made. The counsel contended that no reference is made out to find out the possession and therefore the Trial Court is right in appointing the Advocate Commissioner.