E MURUGAN Vs. T DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 31.07.2017 passed in I.A.No.179 of 2017 in O.S.53 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit in O.S.No.53 of 2011 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the revision petitioner/defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the revision petitioner has filed I.A.No.179 of 2017 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit schedule property with the help of a Surveyor and to file a report and plan. The Court below dismissed the said petition, holding that when the respondent/plaintiff proves his case through the oral and documentary evidence, the revision petitioner/defendant can very well cross examine the witnesses and produce relevant documents to disprove the case of the plaintiff, for which, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not necessary.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Trial court ought to have understood the case in proper perspective and allowed the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. It is further contended that the finding of the Court below that the plaintiff has to prove his own case is erroneous since it is also the duty of the defendant to prove his own case by adducing proper evidence to support his case. Further, when location and extent of the suit property is disputed, Commissioner ought to have been appointed for effectively adjudicating the dispute. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-