S PALANIAPPA GOUNDER Vs. S SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 29. 04. 2009 in I. A. No. 6 of 2009 in A. S. No. 134 of 2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of c. P. C. praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and find out whether the pipeline existing in the suit cart track or not and file his report and plan.

(2.) TO avoid an avoidable delay, this court dispenses with the issuance of notice to the respondents in the interest of justice.

(3.) THE First Appellate Authority, while passing orders in I. A. No. 6 of 2009, has come to the conclusion that 'on perusal of court records and in the trial Court commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features and the existence of cart track in the middle of the property and the trial Court after full trial considering the evidence, documents and commissioner report, dismissed the suit that there was no cart track as alleged and the application for appointment of commissioner to find out whether the pipeline is in existence is nothing but additional evidence and that he is not entitled to the benefit under Order 41 rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code and dismissed the application without costs. '