VEMBAIYAN Vs. SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 22 of 2005, which has been filed by the respondent for specific performance of contract on the strength of an agreement of sale dated 29.01.1990, allegedly executed by this petitioner. Pending the trial of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 26, Rule 9, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property along with a qualified Civil Engineer to assess the value of the suit building, age and the other fixtures in the suit building and file a report.

(2.) In the affidavit, he has stated that it is false to allege that by means of the sale agreement, the respondent is trying to grab at the property for a mean sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-, but the house is worth about Rs. 25,00,000/-. Hence, the value of the suit property has to be assessed in order to substantiate the defence raised by this petitioner.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondent, he has alleged that there is no necessity to appoint a commissioner in this case and even in the cross examination the petitioner has admitted that he has sent the sale agreement and in this regard he is not entitled to seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.