O.K.S. BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.130/2017 in O.S.No.24/2017 dtd. 9/6/2017, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property.

(2.) The facts of the case, in nutshell, are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that originally, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.13 of 2017, before the learned District Munsif, Arupukkottai, which was subsequently transferred to the learned Subordinate Judge, Arupukkottai, for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S.No.24 of 2017. Along with O.S.No.13 of 2017, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.148 of 2017, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, which was withdrawn by the plaintiff, prior to the transfer, without any liberty to file fresh application. Thereafter, I.A.No.130 of 2017 in O.S.No.24 of 2017 has been filed, for the same relief, i.e., appointment of Advocate Commissioner, without quoting the change in circumstances and therefore, the said interlocutory application itself ought not to have been entertained.