1. The Petitioner/1st Defendant has focused the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the Order dated 30.04.2010 in I.A.No.12966 of 2009 in O.S.No.2693 of 2006 passed by the Learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while passing the impugned order in I.A.No.12966 of 2009 in O.S.No.2693 of 2006 on 30.04.2010, has categorically observed that 'the Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff has already filed Interlocutory Application praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the same has been dismissed but, after filing of the said Application, the Respondent has been examined as DW1 (in the main suit), who deposed in his evidence that in the suit property, some constructions have been made and further that, in the centre of the suit property, a wall has been raised to an extent of 5 feet, which has been admitted and this fact is a subsequent development after filing of I.A.No.4973 of 2007. Moreover, it is also contended on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff (before the trial Court) that the aforesaid evidence of DW1 in regard to the constructions made in the suit property, including the admission made by him that in the centre of the suit property, at a height of 5 feet, a wall has been raised, has given a cause of action for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner etc.,' and resultantly, it is held by the trial Court that 'if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed, it will reduce much of oral and documentary evidence and by so appointing an Advocate Commissioner, no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent's side' and consequently, allowed the Application by appointing an Advocate Commissioner Selvi G.Lavanya and fixing her remuneration of Rs.7,000/-.

3. Added further, the Learned Advocate Commissioner has been directed by the trial Court to issue notice to both sides and to note down the physical features of the suit property and to file her report together with Plan and posted the case to 10.06.2010.

4. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 30.04.2010 in allowing I.A.No.12966 of 2009 in O.S.No.2693 of 2006 passed by the Learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Civil Revision Petitioner/1st Defendant has preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition contending that the Order of the trial Court in allowing I.A.No.12966 of 2009 in O.S.No.2693 of 2006, dated 30.04.2010 (filed by the Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff) is against Law and also, in negation of the principles of natural Justice.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/1st Defendant urges before this Court that the trial Court has failed to appreciate a rudimentary fact that on earlier occasion, I.A.No.4973 of 2007 has been filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff (as Petitioner) praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the same purpose of noting down the physical features of the private passage and the said Application has been dismissed on 02.07.2007. As such, the second I.A.No.12966 of 2009 (filed by the Respondent/Petitioner) is not per se maintainable in Law because of the simple reason when the existence of wall is very much admitted, there is no necessity or any need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/1st Defendant brings it to the notice of this Court that after dismissal of I.A.No.4973 of 2007 on 02.07.2007 by the trial Court, the Respondent/Plaintiff has taken out an Application for summoning the Tahsildar to adduce evidence and the same has been allowed. However, the Respondent/Plaintiff has failed and neglected to file batta for summoning the Tahsildar. Therefore, the Respondent/Plaintiff has been perforced to file the present I.A.No.12966 of 2009 praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the same purpose of noting down the physical features of the private passage and obtained an order of appointing an Advocate Commissioner, which cannot be countenanced in any ma