BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. KANAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred this revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 19. 6. 2008 in I. A. No. 419 of 2008 in O. S. No. 92 of 2008 passed by the District Munsif,sankari in dismissing the application filed by them under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make a local inspection of the suit property and note down the existing of the physical features in and around the suit property in particular to note down the existence of the suit, A,b,c,d Cart track and to file his report with plan.

(2.) THE trial Court while passing orders in I. A. NO. 419 of 2008 in O. S. No. 92 of 2008 has inter alia observed that the revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs have not filed documents in regard to their existing right in the cart track and therefore has come to a conclusion that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not necessary and resultantly dismissed the application.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs have filed suit in O. S. No. 92 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif, Sankari praying for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful user and enjoyment of the suit A,b,c,d Cart track.