P RAJENDRAN Vs. S NEELAYATHATCHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner herein/2nd defendant to set aside the Order dated 03.06.2008 made in I.A.No.2542 of 2005 in O.S.No.830 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur.

(2.) THE 2nd defendant in O.S.No.830 of 2004 is the revision petitioner before this Court. THE suit in O.S.No.830 of 2004 has been filed by the first respondent herein/plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property or in any manner trespassing in to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property to any third parties and also for a permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant from in any manner entertaining or registering any documents in respect of the suit property that may be presented by the defendants 1 to 6 for registration. Written statement has been filed by the petitioner herein/2nd defendant and the suit is being contested. Pending suit, an application in I.A.No.2542 of 2004 has been filed by the first respondent herein/plaintiff to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure, locate and identify the suit property along with a Taluk Surveyor under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. THE said application was resisted by the petitioner herein/2nd defendant by filing a counter. THE trial Court by order dated 03.06.2008 allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/2nd defendant would submit that in a suit filed for permanent injunction, an application filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff for appointment of Advocate Commissioner ought not to have been allowed by the trial Court. Moreover, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property in this suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a judgment reported in 2006 - 4 - L.W. 516 (1. Chinnathambi, 2) Mani @ Sellammal, 3)Selvaraj Vs. Anjalai) to reiterate that the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence. THErefore, according to him, the order passed by the court below is liable to be interfered with by this Court.