The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property will not amount to collection of evidence, especially in cases where there are contradictions in the available reports.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order of the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Munsif, Salem made in I.A.No.269 of 2016 in O.S.No.164 of 2016 dated 27.03.2017.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The respondents filed suit in O.S.No.164 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif, Salem to declare the respondent's right to take water through the pipeline laid beneath the land in S.F.No.160/2, 172/2, 162/2 and 163 described in the schedule properties by the respondents' vendors on the basis of the license/permission granted by the petitioners' vendors to the “A” Schedule properties and the restrain the petitioners' and their men by means of permanent injunction from in any manner interfering with the respondents' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit ''A'' schedule properties by taking water through the "B" schedule cement pipeline water course to irrigate the suit “A” schedule properties. The 2nd petitioner filed written statement and is contesting the suit. The 2nd petitioner also filed counter claim alongwith the written statement.

3. According to the respondents, they are the owners of the plaint 'A' schedule property for having purchased the same by deed of sale dated 23.11.2015. There is a well in Survey No.159/2B4 and the respondents are drawing water from the said well to 'A' schedule properties through 'B' Schedule property and poromboke odai. The predecessors in title of the respondent obtained permission from the predecessor in title of the petitioners and laid pipeline in 'B' schedule property at the depth of 6 feet beneath the ground. The petitioners were objecting for drawal of water through 'B' schedule property and are denying the existence of such pipeline. In the said circumstances, the respondents have filed the present suit. The petitioners are denying that there is a pipeline laid in 'B' Schedule property and the government poromboke odai.

4. The respondents have filed I.A.No.269 of 2016 in O.S.No.164 of 2016 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and also note the existence of the cement pipeline water course in the suit “B” schedule property with the assistance of VAO and qualified surveyor and to file report with plan drawn to scale.

5. The petitioners filed counter affidavit and denied the existence of pipeline in 'B' schedule property and government poromboke odai and denied that the petitioners' vendors or petitioners gave permission at any point of time to lay down the pipeline in their land. The petitioners have stated that it is for the respondents to prove the existence of the pipeline and the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting the evidence. They also submitted that the predecessor in title of the respondents one Saraswathi lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Panamarathupatty Police Station against the second petitioner alleging that when she went to repair the pipeline, she was prevented. The said complaint was registered as Cr.No.227/2015 under Section 430 of IPC. Subsequently, police closed the said complaint as mistake of fact on 14.12.2015. The said Saraswathi also filed Crl.OP No.209 of 2016 against the petitioners for police protection and W.P.No.2024 of 2016 against the respondents before this Court with regard to the representation given by her before the District Collector, Salem. Suppressing these facts, the respondents have come out with the present application. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the relief of appointing Advocate Commissioner to collect the evidence.

6. Before the learned Judge, the petitioners filed a memo to consider Exs.A1 to A13 which were marked by the respondents in I.A.No.1270/2016. The petitioners marked seven documents as Exs.B1 to B7.

7. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit, documents filed by the pet