R MESHAAK Vs. G DEVASITHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is preferred by the revision petitioners/respondents/defendants as against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed in the Memo dated 13.12.2007 in I.A.No.1946 of 2007 in O.S.No.538 of 2007 by the District Munsif, Tiruvallur in permitting the respondent/petitioner/ plaintiff to repair the roof in the presence of Advocate Commissioner already appointed.

(2.) THE trial Court has passed orders in the Memo dated 13.12.2007 (filed by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff's counsel) to the effect that 'considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is permitted to repair the roof in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner already appointed. THE commissioner may seek necessary Police assistance, if necessary. THE commissioner may file his interim report on the repairing process after its completion. Call on 17.01.2008.'

(3.) IT appears that the trial Court, in I.A.No.1946 of 2007 on 13.12.2007, has granted time till 17.01.2008 for filing report by the Advocate Commissioner. IT is relevant to point out that a Memo dated 13.12.2007 has been filed before the trial Court on behalf of the respondent/ petitioner/plaintiff by his counsel inter alia stating that the revision petitioners/defendants frequently disturb the respondent/plaintiff so that the plaintiff could not undertake repair works and in fact, on 29.10.2007 the revision petitioners/defendants violently removed the plastic cover on the roof of the suit house and that caused leakage of the same etc. and therefore, prayed for an issuance of a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to file report of the suit house and to provide necessary assistance to carry out the repair works thereof. Admittedly, the respondent/ petitioner/plaintiff has not filed any fresh interlocutory application (other than I.A.No.1946 of 2007) praying for a direction to be issued to the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to file report.