(1.) THESE civil revision petitions are filed against the orders dated 12.4.2005 and 8.3.2006 passed in I.A.Nos.962 of 2005 and 962 of 2004, respectively, in O.S.No.130 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Nagapattinam.Common OrderInveighing the orders dated 12.4.2005 and 8.3.2006 passed in I.A.Nos.962 of 2005 and 962 of 2004, respectively, in O.S.No.130 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, these civil revision petitions are focussed.
(2.) A 'resume' of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these civil revision petitions, would run thus:-O.S.No. 130 of 2002 was filed by Jothi Ammal, the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1079 of 2005 and respondent in C.R.P.No.882 of 2006 as against the respondent Jayapal in C.R.P.No.1079 of 2005 and petitioner in C.R.P.No.882 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs:TamilDuring the pendency of the said suit, an Advocate Commissioner was got appointed for visiting the suit property and measuring the same with the help of a Surveyor. It appears, the Commissioner also visited the suit property, measured it and submitted his report. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the Commissioner's report and sketch, the defendant Jayapal filed the I.A.No.962 of 2004 for re-issuance of Commissioner Warrant, directing the Commissioner to measure once again the suit property, with the help of the Inspector of Surveys, Tiruvarur District. Whereupon, the lower Court, after hearing both sides, thought fit to re-issue the Commissioner warrant to the same Commissioner to visit the suit property and measure it with the assistance of the said Inspector of Surveys, as per order dated 12.4.2005. It appears, the Commissioner took steps to re-visit the suit property and measure it. But due to the alleged non-co-operation of both sides, the Commissioner submitted his report to the Court his inability to carry out the mission. Whereupon the Court dismissed the I.A.No.962 of 2004 itself.
(3.) THERE is no representation for Jyothi Ammal in both the C.R.Ps.