R SANKARALINGAM Vs. P RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.143 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sattur and the said suit was filed seeking the relief of injunction among other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and after inspection, a report was also filed. Subsequently, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.383 of 2015 for re- issuance of Commissioner Warrant, directing measurement of the petition schedule property and to submit a report and the said application was dismissed on 05.02.2016 on the ground that there is no defect in the Advocate Commissioner's report. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner / plaintiff that the Commissioner had failed to furnish the exact measurement of the suit schedule property and despite production of memo instruction by the plaintiff, in the report, it was stated that no such memo was given by the plaintiff. There were two measurements shown in the report in respect of the same property and the Commissioner had not measured the suit schedule property and the property of the defendants separately.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that since the Advocate Commissioner proceeded to inspect the property based on the Surveyor's plan, it becomes necessary to direct the Commissioner to revisit the property once again and file an additional report along with rough plan. Contending that the Commissioner has not measured the property properly and if the suit is proceeded on the basis of the said report, much prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, he filed an application for re-issuane of warrant to the Advocate Commissioner for revisiting the property, which was rejected by the Trial Court.