ORDER :- Civil Revision is directed against the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and measure the properties fully described in the schedule with the help of a Surveyor and to file a detailed report with plan.

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

(i) The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 289 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his possession thereof. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment and decree dated 18-4-2001, the District Munsif, Pollachi had decreed the suit in part, granting a decree for declaration of his title. Insofar as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the Court held that the respondent/plaintiff had not proved his claim for possession of the suit property and the alleged trespass made by the petitioner. In the result, the Lower Court dismissed the suit.

(ii) After two years, another suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 100 of 2003 on the file of the same Court against the petitioner/defendant praying for a decree of permanent injunction. Written statement has been filed in this case by the petitioner/defendant and that the maintainability of the letter suit has also been questioned on the principles of res judicata and other grounds.

3. In the above suit, the respondent/plaintiff in paragraph 3 of the plaint has stated as follows :

"However, the prayer for permanent injunction was dismissed on the ground that the cause of action was not proved. It is submitted that, subsequently also the revenue officials have measured the property of the plaintiff and defendant and the stones had been fixed in the dividing line clearly demarcating the suit property and the defendant's property. Hence, there is no necessity to seek for the appointment of the Commissioner to fix the dividing line."

4. While that be the position, the respondent/plaintiff has filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in I.A. No. 251 of 2005 to inspect and measure the suit property with the help of a Surveyor. The said application was resisted by the petitioner/defendant, contending that the suit itself is not maintainable and therefore the second application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is contrary to his own pleadings made in paragraph 3 of the plaint and the findings rendered in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 289 of 1998, which was disposed of on 18-4-2001.

5. While appointing the Advocate Commissioner, the Lower Court has passed the following order :

"Records perused. The suit is filed for permanent injunction and on perusal of both plaint and written statement it seems that the dispute is only with regard to 75 cents and by fixing the boundary with help of surveyor will decide the entire issue in the suit even in the earlier suit it seems that the relief of injunction has not been granted. Since the Commissioner has not been appointed and the boundary has not been fixed with the help of surveyor. Hence under those circumstances as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner by appointing the commissioner will reduce such of the oral evidence. Hence Thiru M. Mujibur Rahman, has been appointed the Commissioner to inspect the suit property with the help of surveyor and note down the physical features along with the surveyor. Commissioner report and plan by 23-9-2005. Commissioner fee of Rs. 1500/-payable directly to Commissioner by the petitioner."

Aggrieved against the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the respondent himself has admitted in the plaint filed in the present suit, that the Revenue Officials have measured the properties of the petitioner and the respondent, and ston

Click Here to Read the rest of this document