S KARUNANITHI Vs. TAMILSELVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed this present civil revision petition as against the orders dated 19.11.2008 in I.A.No.582 of 2008 in O.S.No.104 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC praying for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure A and B Schedule properties with the help of the land surveyor and to file his report.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.582 of 2008 has come to a conclusion that the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, belatedly and that on the side of the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff witnesses have been examined and completed and at the time when the witnesses on the side of the respondents/respondents/defendants are being examined, the present application has been filed and resultantly dismissed the application.

(3.) IT is to be noted that the power of a Court of law to appoint a Commissioner is a discretionary one, indeed the object of Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC is not to help the party to collect evidence, where the party himself can get the evidence himself. IT is true that a Court of law cannot prevent the parties from producing best possible evidence to project their case.