L MANOHARAN Vs. A RAMATHILAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S.No.208 of 1991 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Madurai Taluk, have preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal in I.A.No.24 of 1998, dated 25.9.1998.

(2.) THE petitioners/defendants filed a petition under O.26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection preferably by the previous Commissioner, directing him to identify and locate the properties purchased by the plaintiffs and the defendants in survey No.401/1 after fixing the boundaries and also to locate the disputed property with reference to the sale deeds of both parties and to note the other things that may be pointed out by the parties at the time of inspection and to submit a report with plan.

(3.) THE respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the suit property belongs to them absolutely and also they are seeking recovery of vacant possession after removal of the superstructure. THE suit was filed in the year 1991. No doubt, a Commissioner was already appointed in this case on the application filed by the respondents and report was also filed. Again an interim report was also filed by the Commissioner in I.A.No.158 of 1995. Subsequently, I.A.No.158 of 1995 was closed by the trial court on the ground that the Commissioner has returned the warrant stating that in view of the prevailing situation, the work could not be carried out. It is necessary to state that the petitioners preferred C.R.P.No.3547 of 1997 against the orders of closing the commission application and this Court by an order dated 9.1.1998, dismissed the civil revision petition with an observation that if the parties desire and if they make out a case, it is always open to them to seek further direction from the trial court.