S THANGARAJ Vs. VALLIYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 13.10.2008 passed in I.A.No,45 of 2008 in O.S.No,37 of 2008 by the Principal Sub Court, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) THE epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition, would run thus:- THE revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No,37 of 2008 before the Principal Sub Court, Erode, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the immovable property, by making the following prayers in the plaint:

(3.) A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court with reference to the typed set of papers would highlight and spotlight, evince and evidence that the said order of the lower Court is far from satisfactory. In the affidavit, accompanying the I.A.No,45 of 2008, the plaintiffs expressed their intention to place the physical features of the suit property before the Court by getting a Commissioner appointed in that regard. But the lower Court misapplied the proposition of law as though the plaintiffs are trying to gather evidence in their favour with the help of the Commissioner. Gathering evidence with the help of a Commissioner is entirely different from seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features and there is an abysmal difference between the two.