K VADIVEL Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed in I.A. No. 17 of 2007, pe"tition filed under Order 26 Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C., in A.S. No.8 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, is under challenge before this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on Marayee and Another v. Raju and Another, (1994) 2 MLJ 501 would contend that in a case where an Advo"cate Commissioner has already been ap"pointed and filed his report and "plan, another Commissioner cannot appointed for the sec"ond time at the appellate stage. But that is not the case herein. No fresh commissioner was appointed by way of the order passed in I.A. No. 17 of 2007 in A.S. No.8 of 2005.

(3.) IN fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dis"missed before admission. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Without be"ing carried away by any of the observations made in this order, the learn first appellate Judge is directed to dispose of A.S. No.8 of 2005 within period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after expe"diting the work of the Advocate Commis'sioner appointed under the order in I.A. No.17 of 2007. Revision dismissed.