(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.04.2003 passed by the learned District Munsif, Paramakudi in I.A.No.588 of 2003 in O.S.No.137 of 1995, as stated therein.)

Aggrieved against the Order of allowing the Petition and scrapping the Commissioner's Report, Defendants 1 and 3 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. The Impugned Order arises out of the order dated 10.04.2003 passed by the District Munsif, Paramakudi in I.A.No.588 of 2003 in O.S.No.137 of 1995.

2. O.S.No. 137 of 1995:- The Suit Property forms part of S.No.76/3, Keelaperungarai Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramnad District. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff purchased the entire extent of property in S.No.76/3 from several persons. The First Defendant owns the land on the adjacent side / Eastern Side in S.No.77/1. The First Defendant has made a false claim to the Suit Property and attempting to prevent the Plaintiff from peacefully enjoying the Suit Property. The Plaintiff has no knowledge whether in the Survey, the Suit Property has been demarcated in the Property of the Defendant. Alleging that the Defendants are proclaiming change the physical features to substantiate the false claim, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Declaration of his Title over the Suit Property and for Permanent Injunction.

3. Claiming that the Suit Property is located in S.No.77/1, which is the Property belonging to the First Defendant, the First Defendant has filed the Written Statement denying the case of the Plaintiff that he is entitled to the Suit Property in S.No.76/3. According to the First Defendant, for the Property on the Eastern Side and Northern Side, Patta has been issued in the name of the First Defendant. Taking advantage of the absence of the First Defendant in the Village, the Plaintiff cut and removed the Jambo Tree. The Tahsildhar, Paramakudi had also issued a Proceeding to the effect that the Suit Property and the Tree belongs to the First Defendant. Since the Plaintiff is not entitled to the Suit Property in S.No.76/3, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for.

4. Earlier, by the concurrent findings of the Courts below the Suit was decreed. As against the said Judgment and Decree, Defendants 1 and 3 have preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.1220 of 2000. The High Court, setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below, remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. The matter was remitted back mainly for the purpose of issuance of Warrant to the same Advocate Commissioner with a direction to fix the location of the Property with specific Survey Number and on receipt of the Commissioner's Report, the Trial Court was directed to decide the matter afresh.

5. After the matter was remanded back, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner had inspected the Suit Location on 22.02.2003 and filed the Elaborate Report.

6. I.A.No.588 of 2003:- After the Commissioner had filed his Report, alleging that the Commissioner had not properly measured the Suit Property and that there is necessity for the Appointment of another Advocate Commissioner with the help of Surveyor and the Revenue Officials, the Plaintiff has filed this application for Appointment of Another Advocate Commissioner. The Application was strongly resisted by the Defendants contending that the earlier Commissioner had taken the assistance of the Surveyor and the Revenue Officials and the Suit Property was measured from all four sides. It is alleged that since the earlier Report is not favourable, the Plaintiff has filed this Application with a view to delay the Trial proceedings. The claim of the Petitioner to measure the Suit Property with the help of another Surveyor is unacceptable.

7. Learned District Munsif found that the averment in the Counter Statement is acceptable. However, the learned District Munsif scrapping the earlier Report, reappointed the same Advocate Commissioner