K PALANIRAJAN Vs. RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/plaintiff/petitioner has filed the present revision aggrieved against the order dated 20.11.2007 passed in I.A.No.1418 of 2007 in O.S.No.89 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif, Panruti in dismissing the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC praying for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to note down the physical features and also to measure the suit property with the help of a Surveyor and to find out as to whether there is any demarcation for 0.59 - cents in the suit property and to file his report with plan.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.1418 of 2007 in O.S.No.89 of 2006, has inter alia observed that in regard to the suit property in question already a preliminary decree has been passed in O.S.No.143 of 2000 and in I.A.No.350 of 2006 filed for passing a final decree, an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and that the suit property has been identified with the help of a Village Administrative Officer and the same has been measured and report and plan has been filed and thereafter, the delivery has been effected and resultantly dismissed the said application.

(3.) THIS Court has paid its anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel on either side and noticed their contentions.