MURUGESAN Vs. JAMUNA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 27.02.2008 passed in I.A.No.18 of 2008 in O.S.No.92 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram.

(2.) THE defendant in O.S.No.92 of 1997 is the revision petitioner before this Court. THE suit in O.S.No.92 of 1997 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for Specific Performance of the sale agreement dated 11.10.1995 by directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit property. Written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant and the suit is being contested. Pending suit an application in I.A.No.18 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property with the assistance of a qualified engineer, to measure the suit property, the physical features, the nature of construction, the value of the building and the site and to file a detailed report and plan. THE said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. THE trial Court by order dated 27.02.2008 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed.

(3.) I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the suit is one for Specific performance of the sale agreement filed by the respondent/plaintiff to execute the sale agreement dated 11.10.1995. It is the petitioner's case that such valuable property would never be sold for a meagre amount as shown in the alleged sale agreement. Therefore, in order to prove his case and disprove the case of the plaintiff, an advocate commissioner was required to be appointed.