Appointment of Advocate Commissioner held proper.

.1. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Srivilluputhur, in I.A.No.862 of 1998 in O.S.No.213 of 1998 appointing an advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property, note down the physical features and file a report along with a plan.

2. The suit has been for a declaration that the pathway covered by the letter CDEFGHI as shown in the plaint plan belongs to the plaintiff exclusively and consequential injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 and another K. Rajamani who is the third defendant in the suit, from interfering with petitioners/plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment for a mandatory injunction directing the first respondent herein to close the door way fixed on the parapet wall T for mandatory injunction directing the third defendant in the suit to close the door way kept by him on the parapet wall G and for a permanent injunction restraining the second respondent herein from putting up any construction in the area converted by GH in the plaint plan and for other reliefs.

3. Pending the suit the revision petitioner applied for an interim injunction and notice has been ordered and the injunction application is pending. The respondents herein took out an application in I.A.No.862 of 1998 for the appointment of an advocate Commissioner to visit the suit item 2, measure the same, note down the physical and other features and file a plan along with a report. The allegations in support of the application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner are that the respondents and the revision petitioner had been using the second item of the suit properties as common pathway for generations, that this fact has been suppressed by the revision petitioner and he had filed the suit and an injunction application with false facts, that the revision petitioner had after the filing of the suit attempted to block the common pathway and that for appreciating the correct state of affairs that other than the common pathway in suit item 2 the defendants have no other way for passage and these details had to be brought to the notice of the Court and this could be done only by the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

.4. This application was opposed by the revision petitioner by contending that the pathway shown as suit item 2 belongs to the revision petitioner exclusively, that he has filed the relevant documents to substantiate this along with the plaint, that the respondents have suppressed these facts and claimed rights in the property which is illegal and improper. The revision petitioner further contented that the respondents had not filed any counter in the application for injunction, that an Advocate Commissioner if at all could be appointed only after the respondents filed their counter and their documents and took up a definite stand.

5. The learned District Munsif after setting out the rival contentions of the parties, allowed the application by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. Aggrieved the present revision petition has been filed and it is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned District Munsif has not assigned any reason whatsoever for granting the prayer by appointing an Advocate commissioner. The learned counsel vehemently contented that the lower court seriously erred in appointing an Advocate Commissioner even before the respondents set up their defence and disclosed as to how they were making a claim to the suit second item. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that no Advocate Commissioner could be appointed to find out as to who is in possession of the suit property and for this reason alone the order passed by the lower Court is to be set aside.

6. In support of her contentions the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:

(1) K. Raghunath Rao v. Smt. Tumula Jailaxmi, AIR 1988 Ori 30; (2) Gopal Chettiar (deceased) and 3 others v. P.A.A Sahul Hameedandanother, (3)LW773; (3) D.S.Reddy -rep b