Court cannot exercise power of appointment of Advocate Commissioner for local inspection.

(Prayer :Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 11.08.2005 made in I.A.No.1736 of 2004 made in O.S.No.463 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur.)

Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows :

(i) The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction. Pending disposal of the suit, interim injunction has been granted. According to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of the property by way of registered Sale Deed and that she is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by paying the Kists and penal tax to the Government regularly. The petitioners/defendants have own lands on the western side of the suit property. On 19.12.1992, the petitioners/defendants attempted to obliterate the cart-track running on the northern side of the lands of the respondent/plaintiff.

(ii) In S.No.29/5, out of total extent of 2 acres 8 cents, 0.07 cents were given to one deceased, by name, Karupayee, wife of Chinnathambi,(the first petitioner herein), as per the exchange in suit No.455/92. The petitioners/defendants were in possession and enjoyment of 0.15 cents of land and they have a field thatched house and thrashing floor. Subsequently, the petitioners/defendants have encroached the pathway portion to an extent of 0.03 cents, which was earlier used by the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioners/defendants are in possession of 0.25 cents and the rest of the land measuring about 1.83 acres are in possession of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioners/defendants made arrangements to obliterate the land of the respondent/plaintiff by enlarging the properties and proposed to encroach a further extent of 0.09 cents. The respondent/plaintiff has filed an application seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit properties described in the schedule and to measure the same with the help of a qualified Surveyor, according to the FMB plan and file his report.

(iii) The petitioners/defendants by filing a counter affidavit resisted the application and contended that the actual disputed property is in S.No.29/5, which is a Government Poramboke land. The respondent is not in possession and enjoyment of the above said land and that there are no revenue records in the name of the respondent. The revenue records have been tampered with, unlawfully by the husband of the respondent in respect of S.No.29/5, with the support of the then Village Administrative Officer. There is no dispute with respect to the cart-track.

(iv) The petitioner further contended that the actual dispute is only with respect to the extent of the possession in S.No.29/5 and that there is no dispute with respect to the identification of the property. There is no obliteration of the land or cart-track as alleged by the respondent/plaintiff and the contention that there is an attempt to encroach upon 0.09 cents of land is also false. The petition to find out the possession of the properties in a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. The petitioner further contended that though, interim injunction has been granted on 19.11.2003 and the matter was posted to various dates for hearing, the respondent/plaintiff was not inclined to get along with the injunction application, but only to protract the hearing of the petition, she has chosen to file this petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioners/defendants prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(iv) The Court below after considering the rival submissions, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features with the help of a Surveyor and to file his report. Aggrieved by the order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for peti