AMBROSE Vs. NEELAMEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/ defendants to set aside the Order dated 14.02.2007 made in I.A. No.288 of 2005 in O.S. No.85 of 2004 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ariyalur.

(2.) THE defendants in O.S. No.85 of 2004 are the revision petitioners before this Court. THE Suit in O.S. No.85 of 2004 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 11.06.2003. Written statement has been filed by the petitioners/defendants and the Suit is being contested. Pending Suit, an Application in I.A. No.288 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioners/defendants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the value of the suit property. THE said Application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. THE Trial Court by order dated 14.02.2007 dismissed that Application. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants.

(3.) THE Suit in O.S. No.85 of 2004 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 11.06.2003. Pending Suit an Application in I.A. No.288 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioners/defendants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the value of the suit property as the sale consideration contained in sale agreement is very low and therefore such an agreement could not have been entered into by the revision petitioners for such a low consideration. According to the petitioners/defendants, the property is situated at a commercial area and therefore, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner would help the Court to decide the issue in the Suit. On the objection raised by the respondent/plaintiff, the Trial Court dismissed the Application which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is illegal warranting interference by this Court.