M.V. Muralidaran, J.

1. The case of the revision petitioners is that they have purchased some stretch of properties viz the properties mentioned as item Nos.5 and 6 in Schedule of properties in suit in O.S. No. 170 of 2006. The said properties were purchased from their vendors for a valid sale consideration and registered the sale deed dated 11.12.1991 and 14.03.2007. Thereafter the purchase of the aforementioned properties, the revision petitioners carried out several developments over the said properties viz

1. Fencing expenses of entire item 5 and 6 incurred by the Revision Petitioners

2. Two wells were depended by digging 40 feet further.

3. Erected 10 bore wells.

4. Constructed cattle shed measuring 1,200 sq.ft.

5. A new tiled house about 1.200 sq.ft.

6. Planted 350 coconut saplings

7. Expenses incurred for levelling the land fit for cultivation.

2. Being so, an Advocate Commissioner claimed to be appointed in the above said O.S. No. 170 of 2006 visited the suit property. Thereupon the revision petitioners got knowledge of a suit for partition in O.S. No. 170 of 2006, that was pending between the revision petitioners' vendor and his family members. Furthermore the revision petitioner came to know that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed in furtherance of a preliminary decree came to be passed in respect of the above said properties as well as including some other properties also. The said Advocate Commissioner namely Mr. K.C. Dhanasekaran executed the warrant and thereby inspected the suit properties on 17.11.2007. In pursuance of his inspection he filed his report before the Trial Court on 03.01.2008. At this juncture the revision petitioners made all their effects canvassing the Advocate Commissioner about the enormous improvement made by the revision petitioners viz stated supra as 1 to 7. However since these revision petitioners were not a party to the partition suit in O.S. No. 170 of 2006, the Advocate Commissioner remind heedless to the contentions of the revision petitioners. That apart the Advocate Commissioner has also failed to note down some necessary features in this regard.

3. Therefore immediately the revision petitioners filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 47 of 2008 praying for impleading the revision petitioners in the above said final decree proceedings in I.A. No. 698 of 2006, so as to put forth their claim and workout their equities as being a bona fide purchaser of the afore mentioned properties. However, the said I.A. No. 47 of 2008 filed by the revision petitioners was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 04.07.2008. Against which the revision petitioners filed a revision in C.R.P. No. 3438 of 2008, wherein the Trial Court's order was set aside and the revision petitioner were impleaded as parties in the above said suit as respondents 7 to 9 in the final decree proceedings. Thereby this Court vide order dated 27.01.2009 directed the Trial Court to reopen the proceedings, thereby enabling this revision petitioners to work out their equities before the Trial Court.

4. The said order of this Court impleading the revision petitioners and the reopening of the case, came to be challenged before the Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 8453 and 8454 of 2009. The said S.L.P. was dismissed on 30.09.2011 by holding that the order of this Court not warranted any interference. Thus the order of this Court allowing the impleading petition of the revision petitioners and reopening of the case has became final. Whereupon the revision petitioners herein immediately filed a interlocutory application in I.A. No. 184 of 2013 in the final decree proceedings in I.A. No. 698 of 2006, under Order 26, Rule 13 , 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC praying for a re-issuance of warrant of Advocate Commissioner to revisit the items 5 and 6 of the suit properties viz bonafidely purchased by the revision petitioners, so as to render his suggestions for working out the equities. However the said I.A. of revision petitioners for re