(1.) The revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants have filed this civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 24.06.2008 in I.A. No. 643 of 2006 in O.S. No. 38 of 2006 passed by the District Munsif Court, Sankari in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners/petitioners/defendants praying for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A. No. 643 of 2006, has inter alia opined that 'the classification of lands can be determined at the time of trial of the main case and to find out the land classification the report of the Commissioner is not necessary and has resultantly, dismissed the application.'
(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the revision petitioners in I.A. No. 643 of 2006 before the trial Court have only prayed for demarcation of item No. 2 of the suit property and to note down the Vinayagar temple in it and also to measure item No. 2 of the suit property by means of an appointment of Commissioner so that much of the oral evidence on their side and much of the precious time of the trial Court can be saved and this aspect of the matter has not been looked into in a proper perspective by the trial Court and this has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.