R CHINTHAMANI Vs. C SAMIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/respondents/defendants 1 and 2 have filed this Civil Revision petition as against the order dated 12. 10. 2009 made in I. A. No. 387 of 2009 in o. S. No. 109 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, gobichettypalayam in allowing the application filed by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure praying for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to assess the damage made in respect of two big wells, 7. 5 H. P. Motors, electricity Connection, Bore well, 5 H. P. pumpsets, etc and to submit a detailed report in regard to the exact amount of sum sustained as damages along with the plan.

(2.) TO avoid an avoidable delay an issuance of notice to the respondent/plaintiff is dispensed with in the interest of Justice.

(3.) THE trial Court while passing an order in I. A. No. 387 of 2009 in O. S. No. 102 of 2009 dated 12. 10. 2009 has inter-alia observed that there is no legal defence projected in the counter and since the application has been filed praying for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to assess the damages sustained etc. , in the interest of Justice, the petition is allowed and resultantly appointed thiru. Mugundan as Advocate Commissioner fixing his remuneration of Rs. 3,000/-and the Advocate Commissioner has been directed to submit his report and plan by 16. 10. 2009 and to avoid an unavoidable delay, this Court dispensed with the issuance of the notice in the interest of Justice.