The order passed in I.A. No. 17 of 2007, petition filed under Order 26 Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C., in A.S. No.8 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, is under challenge before this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on Marayee and Another v. Raju and Another, (1994) 2 MLJ 501 would contend that in a case where an Advocate Commissioner has already been appointed and filed his report and "plan, another Commissioner cannot appointed for the second time at the appellate stage. But that is not the case herein. No fresh commissioner was appointed by way of the order passed in I.A. No. 17 of 2007 in A.S. No.8 of 2005.

3. A Commissioner who was already appointed before the Trial Court, was reap-pointed by the Appellate Authority to fix S. No.452/1 (subject matter in Exhibit B-13) with the help of a taluk surveyor. The defendant in O.S. No.67 of 1992 had filed I.A. No. 17 of 2007 in A.S. No. 8 of 2005. The suit O.S. No. 67 of 1992 was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of a portion marked as A B C D in the rough sketch. A perusal of the rough sketch at page 17 of the type set of paper will go to show that it