MEENAKSHI Vs. VENNILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner as against the orders passed in I.A.No.314/2007 in O.S.No.104/2007 dated 09.01.2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, in dismissing the application for appointment of Commissioner.

(2.) THE learned Principal District Munsif, while dismissing the I.A.314/2007 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for appointment of Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. to make local inspection of the property 'has inter alia observed' that the petitioner/plaintiff has to prove the possession and that the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff could be proved by oral and documentary evidence and that the appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation of the suit property to elicit the matter in dispute is vague and resultantly, has come to the conclusion that the appointment of the Commissioner will not be helpful in deciding the issue of the suit etc.

(3.) HE also cites on the decision reported in Debendranath Nandi, Appellant v. Natha Bhuiyan, Respondent, AIR 1973 Orissa 240, wherein it is held that 'the Appellate Court must appoint fresh commissioner before deciding the appeal if it finds it necessary to reject the report of the trial court commissioner.'