T. Mathivanan, J.

Challenge is made in this memorandum of civil revision to the fair and decretal order dated 15.07.2015 and made in the application in I.A.No.228 of 2005 in the suit in O.S.No.203 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants 7, 8 and 9 in the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2002 whereas the first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents 2 to 13 are the defendants 1 to 6 and 10 to 15. The first respondent/plaintiff is the Nanjay Edayar Vivasaiyigal Sangam represented by its President N.M. Mayandi Gounder, Nanjay Edayar Village, Paramathy Velur Taluk, Namakkal District. He seems to have filed the above suit as against the revision petitioners as well as the respondents 2 to 13 herein seeking the following reliefs:

1. to grant a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 10 to 12 to close the channel formed by them from Rajavaikkal for the purpose of taking water to their respective lands;

2. to grant a mandatory injunction as against the defendants 10 to 12 directing them to remove the pipelines laid by defendants 1 to 9 in the bank of Rajavaikal;

3. To grant a permanent injunction as against the defendants 1 to 9 restraining them from taking water from Rajavaikal scheme against the rights of the plaintiffs;

4. To grant an injunction against the defendants 13 to 15 not to provide electricity service connection to the defendants 1 to 9 so as to enable them to take water to the suit scheme well from Rajavaikal.

3. The suit was contested by defendants 2 to 4, 7 to 9 (revision petitioners herein) and 11th and 15th defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the first respondent/plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.228 of 2005 under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the following particulars and also to file a detailed report along with a plan:

1. To take note of the existing scheme and their respective distance formed by the defendants 1 to 9 in Rajavaikal, which branches from jedarpalayam dam put up in Kaveri river.

2. To note down the electricity service connection provided to their respective schemes and the electricity motor fitted with their respective wells and also to note down the particulars with regard to the availability of the water pipelines and other factors which may be directed to be noted by the Commissioner.

4. This petition was resisted by the respondents by filing their counter statement which was adopted by the other respondents. After hearing both sides, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi, had proceeded to allow the petition on 15.07.2005 and thereby a Commissioner was appointed as prayed for by the first respondent/plaintiff. The Commissioner was also directed to file his report on or before 24.08.2005. Having been aggrieved by the above said order, the respondents 7 to 9 have approached this Court with this revision.

5. Heard Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. S. Saravana Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff.

6. Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued mainly on the following grounds:

1. It is adverted to by the learned counsel that the prayer for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner was sought for in respect of the properties which were not covered by the plaint schedule;

2. The appointment of the Commissioner by the Trial Court was not the scope of the application.

3. It is well settled law that an Advocate Could not be appointed for the purpose of collecting evidence.

4. Mr. P. Valliappan, has also contended that the first respondent/plaintiff had sought the relief of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of collecting evidence which was impermissible in law;

5. The issue raised in the application filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking the appointment of Adv