1. Challenge is made in this memorandum of Civil Revision to the fair and decreetal order dated 14.12.2010 and made in I.A. No. 924 of 2010 in O.S. No. 398 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 398 of 2004, whereas the respondent herein is the defendant.

3. It is manifested from the records that originally the revision petitioner herein being the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 32 of 1999 as against the respondent/defendant on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, seeking the relief of declaration of his title over the suit property and for consequential relief of recovery of vacant possession after removing the superstructure put up by the respondent. The said suit was transferred to the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu on the ground of jurisdiction and re-numbered as O.S. No. 398 of 2004. The said suit was resisted by the respondent by filing his written statement.

4. When the suit was pending before the learned Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A. No. 12 of 1999 to appoint an advocate Commissioner to make local inspection and to file a report along with the rough sketch after due inspection. Accordingly, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he had also filed a report after inspecting the suit property. The report and plan were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2 respectively.

5. Then it is revealed from the records that at the instance of the revision petitioner / plaintiff, another Commissioner was appointed on his application in I.A. No. 117 of 2000 to inspect the suit properties with the help of surveyor. Accordingly, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu had appointed a Commissioner and the Commissioner had also inspected the property after measuring the same with the help of surveyor. In this connection, he has also filed a report.

6. After the suit was transferred to the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, the respondent being the defendant has taken out an application in I.A. No. 924 of 2010 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to scrap the Commissioner's report filed in I.A. No. 117 of 2000 and to appoint a new Advocate Commissioner to measure the property with the help of surveyor in accordance with the layout measurement and revenue records and to file a report with plan. Despite strenuous contest, made by the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu has proceeded to allow that application in I.A. No. 924 of 2010 on 14.12.2010 scrapping the Commissioner's report filed in I.A. No. 117 of 2000 and he has also gone one step further to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

7. Having been aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision.

8. Heard Mr. C. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for Mr. S. Selvanandam, learned counsel who is on record for the respondent.

9. It is obvious to note here that so far as the suit in O.S. No. 398 of 2004 is concerned, trial was already commenced and was in parted heard stage. Only at that time, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed in I.A. No. 117 of 2000 and he had also filed his report on 15.07.2002 along with the plan under Exs.C-1 and C-2 respectively.

10. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court is able to find that the learned District Munsif has proceeded to dispose that application on the following three grounds:-

(1) No notice was issued to the respondent/defendant by the Advocate Commissioner at the time of his inspection;

(2) Despite a memo of instructions was given by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant for revisiting the suit property, the Commissioner did not respond to the memorandum.

(3) The Commissioner's report does not exhibit the true spirit of the Commissioner w