V. Parthiban, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, dated 22.1.2013 made in I.A. No. 61 of 2012 in O.S. No. 45 of 2009, dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed by the Petitioner herein, seeking re-issuance of the Commissioner's warrant to the very same Advocate Commissioner, for properly identifying and measuring the Suit property with the help of the Surveyor and file a Report along with Plan. The Revision Petitioners herein are the Defendants in the Suit in O.S. No. 45 of 2009 filed by the Respondent herein, for Permanent Injunction. Earlier to present I.A. No. 61 of 2012, the Petitioners/Defendants had taken out an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 497 of 2009, seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for identifying and measuring the Suit property for effective adjudication of the lis between the parties. The said Interlocutory Application having been allowed on 4.3.2010. The Respondent/Plaintiff approached this Court by way of filing a Petition in C.R.P. (PD) 2921 of 2010. This Court disposed of the said Civil Revision Petition vide Order dated 21.10.2010, confirming the Order passed by the Trial Judge for appointment of the Advocate-Commissioner and ordered that the inspection by the Commissioner should be confined only to the Suit property and he should not go to inspect other property as claimed by the Respondent/Plaintiff. Thereafter, it appears that the Suit property was inspected by the Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court and a Report was also filed by him.

2. According to the Revision Petitioners, the Report of the Advocate-Commissioner was sketchy and not containing proper details regarding the identity and boundaries of the Suit property and with such incomplete Report, the dispute between the parties can hardly be resolved in the Suit. Therefore, the Petitioners/Defendants filed the subject I.A. No. 61 of 2012 seeking re-issue of the Commissioner's warrant to the very same Advocate- Commissioner, to enable him to properly identify and measure the Suit property with the help of the Surveyor.

3. The said I.A. was resisted by the Respondent/Plaintiff, stating that the 1st Petitioner/ Defendant himself being employed in Revenue Department, would exercise influence on any Surveyor to be appointed for the said purpose and therefore, any Report prepared would only mislead the Trial Court. It is further stated that the Application in question was only to protract the proceedings.

4. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing the rival submissions, dismissed the subject Interlocutory Application vide Order, dated 22.1.2013, which is impugned in this Revision Petition, on the ground that the Petitioners/Defendants have already filed Objections to the Report of the Advocate-Commissioner and the Suit having been filed for bare Permanent Injunction and the Commissioner's Report saying that the Suit survey could not be located for want of survey stone, no purpose would be served by re-issuing of Commissioner's Warrant. Further, the Trial Judge held that the physical features that were sought to be noted down by the learned Advocate-Commissioner would not play a vital role in deciding the issue in controversy between the parties.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would contend that re-issue of Commissioner's Warrant is necessitated to inspect the Suit property along with the Surveyor in view of the fact that in his earlier Report, the Advocate-Commissioner has not given proper identity and measurements of the Suit property since according to him, the extent of Suit Survey could not be measured since he could not find the survey stones. He would also contend that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if re-issuance of Warrant is ordered. In support of his contentions, the learned Coun