Sugumaran vs Sivagandhi

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 11.03.2014 made in I.A. No. 951 of 2011 in O.S. No. 60 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif, Katpadi, in allowing the application filed by the respondent herein, seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit properties with the help of Taluk Surveyor and to measure and identify the boundaries of petition properties and to note down other physical features of the same and to file a report with sketch.

The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 60 of 2011 filed by the respondent herein for bare injunction, restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, situated at Survey No. 61/115, measuring 0.02.19 hectares, at Mariyamman Koil Street, Latteri Village.

The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 951 of 2011, seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, by contending that in the written statement filed by the respondent, it has been stated that the suit property and the property described in another suit of O.S. No. 323 of 2009 are one and the same and therefore, in order to prove that they are not one and the same, the Commissioner has to be appointed for measuring and surveying the property with the help of the Taluk Surveyor.

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the property referred to in O.S. No. 323 of 2009 is in respect of Survey No. 61/114, whereas, the present property, for which the suit is filed, is situated at Survey No. 61/115. The trial Court allowed the application by observing that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner would help the Court to put an end to the dispute between the parties, since the identification of the boundaries of the respective properties can be done by such appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff is seeking to collect evidence through appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which cannot be permitted by the Court.

I am not convincing with the said submission.

Admittedly, the suit has been filed seeking for permanent injunction in respect of Survey No. 61/115, wherein, the plaintiff has clearly stated in the suit that the defendant is the owner of the premises, bearing Survey No. 61/114 and the suit property is situated at Survey No. 61/115. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below in appointing the Advocate Commissioner cannot be found fault with.

At any event, if the report is filed by the Advocate Commissioner and the petitioner is aggrieved against such report, it is open to him to file objection to the said report, which shall be considered by the Court below while deciding the matter between the parties. When such remedy is available to the petitioner, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not going to prejudice his rights in any manner. I find no merits in this Civil Revision Petition.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.