VELUCHAMY Vs. VEKADASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/petitioner/appellant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 15.12.2008 in I.A.No. 90 of 2008 in A.S.No. 31 of 2008 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Virudhunagar, in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to measure the same with the help of the revenue records and the documents of the revision petitioner and with the assistance of a surveyor and to submit a report with plan.

(2.) THE first appellate Court has dismissed the I.A.No. 90 of 2008 praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner on the basis that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to gather evidence to disprove the case of the respondent in respect of the suit property which is not the subject -matter of the suit and resultantly, dismissed the same.

(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the order so passed in I.A.No. 90 of 2008 by the learned Sub Judge, Virudhunagar, the revision petitioner has come forward with this civil revision petition before this Court.