The central legal point established is that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner should adhere to the current provisions of law and should not be for gathering evidence in favor of a party.

Animadverting upon the order dated 06.08.2008, passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in I.A.No.42 of 2008 in O.S.No.58 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A summation and summarisation of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The respondent herein filed the suit for partition. During the pendency of the same, the revision petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.42 of 2008 for getting a Commissioner appointed for the following purposes:

Tamil

The lower Court dismissed it, whereupon this revision is focussed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the defendants would develop his argument to the effect that the main purpose of having filed the I.A. is for getting located and measured the relevant survey numbers found specified in the affidavit of the petitioner accompanying I.A. and also the physical features such as buildings trees etc., thereon. However, the trial Court dismissed it. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that correctly adhering to the current provisions of law governing appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the lower Court dismissed it because the purport of the prayer in the I.A.No.42 of 2008 was to fish out evidence and such a course could not be acceded to by the Court in view of the catena of decisions of this Court.

5. At this juncture I would like to call up and recollect the catena of decisions of this Court that no Commissioner could be appointed at the instance of a party so as to gather particulars in favour of him so as to buttress and fortify his stand. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners is interested in seeing that both the parties should not be made to suffer from dearth of proper description of the property at a later stage. I am in full agreement with his submission and accordingly I would like to set aside the order of the lower Court and allow the I.A. partly as under:

"An Advocate Commissioner shall be appointed purely for the purpose of visiting the suit properties found specified in the plaint schedule and also note the physical features such as pond, house, trees etc., if any, as stated by the defendants and submit his report."

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would make an extempore submission that the Advocate Commissioner may be directed to take the assistance of the Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer concerned for the purpose of carrying out his mission and I am of the opinion that there could be no embargo for that.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent would pray for fixing a time limit for the disposal of the I.A. I could find considerable force in his submission. Accordingly, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the O.S.No.58 of 2007 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.