Mr. M.V. Muralidaran, J.

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 121 of 2012 is the revision petitioner before this Court. Challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee in I.A. Noo.1471 of 2012 in O.S. No. 121 of 2012, rejecting the request made by the petitioner for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and directing him to inspect the suit property, measure the same, note down the physical features, with the help of respective Taluk Surveyors and submit his report along with rough sketch in the said O.S. No. 121 of 2012.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that she has purchased the suit schedule of property situated at Thundalam Village, comprised in S. No. 64/1, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, measuring to an extent of 1062 sq. ft. from (1) K. Ramu, (2) K. Babu and (3) K. Shanmugam, who are residing at No. 50, Perumal Koil street, Numbal, Chennai-77, have executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of K. Venkatesan S/o Late.Kathirvelu, residing at No. 9, Kannabiran Cross Street, Numbal, Chennai-77, registered as Document No. 795/2004, Book No. 4, on the file of SRO-Kundrathur, dated 15.04.2004. Originally, there was a small hut in the suit schedule of property prior to purchase and at the time of purchase, there was no hut available, after purchasing the said property, the plaintiff has put up a small hut in the suit schedule of property.

3. The plaintiff has come forward by saying that after purchasing the suit schedule of property, she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property without any let or hindrance. The plaintiff further states that her vendors' father Late.Kathirvelu had obtained the property by way of hereditary. The plaintiff's vendors' father died on 21.01.1995 and leaving behind his wife (1) Mrs. K. Sarkunam, (2) K. Venkatesan, (3) K. Ramu, (4) K. Babu and (5) K. Shanmugam, are the only legal heirs of the Late.Kathirvelu. Except Mrs. K. Sarkunam wife of deceased Kathhirvelu, all the sons have executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the said K. Venkatesan i.e., one of the legal heirs of Late.Kathirvelu. Pursuant to the above General Power of Attorney, the power holder namely K. Venkatesan has executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 08.01.2007, which was registered as Document No. 129/2007, on the file of No. 1-Joint Sub-Registrar, Saidapet, Chennai South.

4. The plaintiff also further stated that despite the sale of the property by the vendors of the plaintiff, the defendant by namely Anandhi Sankara Narayanan W/o Sankara Narayanan alleged that she is the owner of the suit schedule of property and trying to encroach the same due to raise in prices of the land in and around started demanding more money from the plaintiff and when the plaintiff refused to heed to the unreasonable demand of the defendant, she started to give various troubles to the plaintiff and also started to disturb her possession.

5. But on 26.03.2012, a threat was made from the respondent about the disturbing of the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was given a complaint to the local police station namely Inspector of Police, Madura-voyal Police Station and also to the other higher authorities. When her vendors who have sold the suit property in favour of her and as per the said transaction, which had evidenced in the document and to show that they were already handed over the possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff. The 'B' memo notice, chitta adangal, pasali and house tax stand in the name of the plaintiff's vendor of the suit property and after purchasing the suit property, the plaintiff had changed in her name including E.B., etc. in respect of suit schedule of property.

6. In fact, the adjacent owner of the suit properly one by namely Mr. G. Gowri Shankar had applied for planning permit from Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and the same was granted in his favour on 20.12.1988 and as per the planning permission, the said Mr. G. Gowri Shank