RAMALINGAM Vs. MANIVANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 have projected this civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 2.7.2007 in I.A.No.886 of 2006 in O.S.No.262 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif, Polur in appointing an Advocate Commissioner and directing him to divide the suit properties into thirty equal half and to allot seven shares to the first respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners urges before this Court that the trial Court ought to have seen that against Exparte preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.262 of 2005 dated 22.6.2006, the revision petitioners herein have filed an application to set aside the exparte preliminary decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the same is pending and further that if the plaintiff is permitted to proceed with the final decree and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, it will go against the revision petitioners herein and moreover the trial Court should not have passed order in I.A.No.886 of 2006 for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner inasmuch as an application to set aside the exparte preliminary decree is pending before the same Court and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition.