RADHA Vs. PALAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 have filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 14.10.2008 in I.A.No.1451 of 2008 in O.S.No.273 of 1999 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC praying for an appointment of Commissioner to cause a local inspection and to file his report.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.1451 of 2008 in O.S.No.273 of 1999 has inter alia observed that ' An Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence on behalf of the parties and under the guise of seeking the Advocate Commissioner to find out the suit property lies as mentioned by the revision petitioners, they want the Advocate Commissioner to gather evidence to substantiate their case and has resultantly dismissed the application.

(3.) THE respondents/plaintiffs have filed a counter stating that the said application is not maintainable and that the application has been filed to drag on the suit proceedings and that an Advocate Commissioner is not a competent person to speak about the possession of the suit property.