MANGALANATHAN Vs. SOWNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 21.04.2017, passed in I.A.No.133 of 2017 in O.S.No.175 of 2016, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram.

(2.) The petitioners / plaintiffs have laid the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is found that the petitioners / plaintiffs have also laid an application in I.A.No.809 of 2016 seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property and file a report and plan with reference to the physical features and other factors obtaining from the suit property. It is found that the Court below has entertained the above said application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner and the Advocate Commissioner, who had been appointed, had also visited the suit property and filed a report and plan. To the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner, it is found that the respondent / defendant has not put forth any objection. It is, therefore, found that the Commissioner's report and plan had been taken on record.

(3.) While so, it is found that the respondent / defendant has preferred an application in I.A.No.133 of 2017 alleging that the Advocate Commissioner, who had been appointed to inspect the suit property, had not performed her task properly and that she had not noted the physical features of the suit property by taking the measurements as pleaded in the application and therefore, according to the respondent / defendant, the report of the Advocate Commissioner is liable to be scrapped and the Court below should appoint a new Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property along with the revenue records and hence, the application.