ORDER :- Mr. Sarvabhauman, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, contends that it is rather strange that the appellate Court had appointed a Commissioner when there is already in records a report of the Commissioner which was not attacked by the aggrieved appellants before the lower court, and in the circumstances, the order of the lower appellate Court is contrary to law. In this regard, he refers to the decisions reported in T. R. Rajagopala Iyer v. T.R. Ramachandra Iyer. AIR 1969 Mad 144 and Arumugham v. Arumugham, 1979-1 Mad LJ 358.

2. In the instant case, before me, the petition was filed by the appellant in A.S. No. 132 of 1979 under O.29, R.9 and Ss.94 and 151, Civil P.C. praying for appointment of a, Commissioner for local inspection of the suit property. In the affidavit accompanying the petition I.A. No. 324 of 1981, it is inter alia stated on oath by Selvaraj, the second appellant, that a Commissioner was appointed in the trial Court and that he had filed his reports and plans. It is further stated in the affidavit that some features which were material were not actually noted in the report and that the measurements also had to be checked up. In the c