AALADI Vs. KALIYA PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/first defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 09. 1. 2009 in E. A. No. 343 of 2008 in E. P. No. 166 of 2004 in o. S. No. 164 of 1988 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Gingee in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 read with 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying for an appointment of an advocate Commissioner with the assistance of Surveyor and to submit his report along with plan.

(2.) THE Executing Court, while passing orders in E. A. No. 343 of 2008 dated 09. 01. 2009, has inter alia opined that there is no necessity to find out as to whether the suit property is situated in suit survey number and that too in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant contends that the filing of an application praying for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of Surveyor is to elucidate the Executing Court to resolve the dispute in a facile manner and that the Executing Court has dismissed the E. A. No. 343 of 2008 praying for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the Surveyor without properly appreciating the merits of the case in right earnest, which in turn has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition.