The above revision has been filed by the 1st defendant in the suit pending trial in O.S. No.128/86 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai against the order dt. 3-8-94 in I. A. No. 448/94, where under the Court below has chosen to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner under O.26, R.9, C.P.C. praying for a direction to appoint afresh advocate-commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and send a fresh report and further plan in the light of the document now produced by the petitioners, if need be after measuring the property.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. There is no dispute over the position that the suit is part heard before the trial Court and equally there is no controversy over the position that at the instance of the petitioner, an advocate-commissioner had been appointed and he, on inspection had submitted a report along with plan. The only controversy is as to whether, the present application made at the time of trial, could be countenanced and that too, for the reasons urged by the petitioner in the Court below. The trial judge was of the view that since eight years have lapsed, after the submission of th