MAHALINGAM Vs. PAULPANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 28.01.2015 passed in I.A.No.293 of 2013 in O.S.No.128 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.

(3.) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.128 of 2011 to declare the sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent as null and void and to declare that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the second schedule property and for permanent injunction. The petitioner filed I.A.No.293 of 2013 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. This petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed the present petition.