M DEVASAGAYAM Vs. D ARULAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants have filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 31.1.2008 in I.A.No.3782 of 2007 in O.S.No.839 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 of CPC praying for an appointment of Commissioner to inspect the suit property and its surroundings and also to note down the articles found in the suit property, to measure the same and to file his report.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.3782 of 2007 has inter alia observed that in regard to the situation of the suit property, its four boundaries Survey Number, there are no disputes between the parties and a Commissioner cannot be appointed to note down the articles from the petition mentioned property and to prove possession of the suit property one cannot gather evidence by appointing an Advocate Commissioner and in that view has resultantly dismissed the application.

(3.) IT is to be noted that an order for an appointment of Commissioner is purely a discretionary one in the hands of a trial Court. Further it is well settled principle of law that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather/collect evidence, when, in fact, the party himself can produce evidence himself before the Court in respect of the subject matter of dispute between the parties. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that I.A.No.3782 of 2007 praying for an appointment of Commissioner is only a luxury and not necessity and in that view of the matter, this revision petition is dismissed without costs.