KARUPPUSAMY Vs. RANGASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner as against the order dated 16.10.2008 in I.A.No.176 of 2008 in A.S.No,70 of 2008 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner / defendant praying for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code to note down the physical features such as tethering yard, standing tree and heyricks in the suit property and to submit his report after making a visit there to.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.176 of 2008, has inter alia, opined that the revision petitioner / defendant has not assigned proper reasons for allowing the application praying for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and ultimately, dismissed the application without cost.

(3.) IT is to be noted that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit O.S.No.13 of 2004 on the file of learned District Munisif Court, Sathyamangalam praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/defendant or his daughter or his agents to enter into the property.