KIRUBANITHI AND OTHER Vs. SARDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 01.03.2016 passed in I.A.No.807 of 2014 in O.S.No.171 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai District.

(2.) According to the petitioners/defendants, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.171 of 2012 against the petitioners seeking permanent injunction on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.807 of 2014 under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features with the help of land Surveyor and ascertain as to whether the petition mentioned property is public road or there is any construction and to submit his report. The said application was dismissed by the Court below on 01.03.2016. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent had put up a shed in the suit property and she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, to ascertain the nature of the property, the present application has been filed by the petitioners. Without considering the prayer sought for by the petitioners, the Court below erroneously dismissed the application. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.