(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 6.9.2008 passed in I.A.No,2253 of 2008 in O.S.No.124 of 2003 by the District Munsif Court, Alandur, this civil revision petition is focussed.
(2.) A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.124 of 2003 seeking the following relief: "to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, men and agents or any other persons claiming under defendant from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties." Earlier the plaintiff filed the I.A. and got the Commissioner appointed. The Commissioner also, after visiting the suit property and measuring the same, submitted his report. Whereupon the respondent/defendant filed objections and the revision petitioner once again filed the I.A.No,2253 of 2008 seeking the following reliefs:
(3.) INDUBITABLY and unassailably the suit itself is for declaration and injunction. It is virtually a settled proposition of law that in injunction suits, normally, Advocate Commissioner should not be appointed for carrying out measurements and such like measures, because the very fact that the plaintiff has chosen to file such a suit pre supposes that the plaintiff is having a specific case of her own and that relating to a specific known extent in the possession of the plaintiff, she wants injunction so as to restrain the defendant. At times, for noting the physical features alone, Commissioner could be appointed in such suits and that too, without assigning the task of finding out as to who is in possession of the suit property. When such is the legal position, here the lower Court, leniently appointed earlier an advocate Commissioner. However, as observed by the lower Court clearly the plaintiff was not co-operative with the Commissioner to measure the property in such a water logged area and subsequently when the Commissioner, with the help of Surveyor went to measure the property, there was non co-operation on the side of the plaintiff. I could see no reason to doubt the observations made by the lower Court as against the petitioner's non-co-operative attitude.