PR THANGARAJ DAVID Vs. GLORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner / first defendant challenging the fair and decreetal order, dated 17.04.2017 in I.A.No.598 of 2016 in O.S.No.89 of 2013, by the learned District Munsif, Sathur.

(2.) The first respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner / 1st defendant and the respondents 2 & 3 / defendants 2 & 3 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After completion of evidence, when the matter was posted for argument, the first respondent / plaintiff has filed I.A.No.598 of 2016 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner stating that since the defendants specifically denied that the suit property is a vacant land and there was no building in existence in the suit property and according to the first respondent / plaintiff, there was a building, which was subsequently demolished by the defendants, an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed to find out whether any building was in existence in the suit property. The Court below has allowed the said interlocutory application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner, against which the present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner / 1st defendant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / 1st defendant would submit that the suit property belongs to the religious institution, which is being managed by the revision petitioner / 1st defendant and the first respondent / plaintiff claimed the suit property, based on the settlement deed executed by her husband, who had no legal right over the suit property and that the document number and survey number have been wrongly mentioned in the plaint. He would further submit that in order to prove and collect evidence about her possession, the first respondent / plaintiff had filed the said interlocutory application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the same was erroneously allowed by the Court below and hence, the order impugned in this petition is liable to be set aside.