MARAYAPA GOUNDER Vs. SAILASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.08.2006 made in I.A.No,496 of 2006 in O.S.No,40 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri praying to set aside the same.) The revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the civil revision petition as against the order dated 10.08.2006 passed in I.A.No,496 of 2006 in O.S.No,40 of 1984 by the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, in dismissing the application filed under Order XVI, Rule 9 of C.P.C. praying for appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property and to submit his report along with plan.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No. 486 of 2006 has inter alia observed that the matter is pending for cross examination of P.W.1 and at that time, the application for appointment of an advocate commissioner has been filed with a view to protract the proceedings and that the suit has reached the stage of final enquiry and has resultantly dismissed the application.

(3.) IT is to be noted that the appointment of an advocate commissioner is within the discretionary domain of the Court of law. As a matter of fact, when a party is in a position to produce the best evidence and when he can substantiate his case by letting in evidence, this Court is of the considered view that he cannot gather or procure evidence by means of appointment of an advocate commissioner. Moreover, this Court opines that the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs can establish their case through the documents they rely upon by adducing oral and documentary evidence in the manner known to law. Viewed in that perspective, this Court is of the view that the application filed by the revision petitioners praying for appointment of an advocate commissioner is only a luxury and not a case of necessity and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.