Thiru M. Duraiswamy, J.

Challenging the fair and final order passed in E.A.No.180 of 2014 in E.P.No.237 of 2011 in O.S.No.498 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai, the judgment debtors-defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.498 of 2003 for the following reliefs:-

(i) declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of 1st item of the suit property ; and

(ii) declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 2nd item of the suit property.

3. After contest, the Trial Court decreed the suit by declaring the title of the plaintiffs to an extent of 2.23 cents in 1st item of the suit property and 2 cents in respect of 2nd item of the suit property. The defendants were also directed to pay the market value in respect of 2.23 plus 2 cents to the plaintiffs.

4. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.498 of 2003, the defendants have filed an appeal in A.S.No.49 of 2008 and the plaintiffs have filed a Cross Objection in Cross Objection No.65 of 2009, before the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai.

5. The Lower Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal and allowed the Cross Objection filed by the plaintiffs, thereby decreed the suit in O.S.No.498 of 2003 in to.

6. Against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.49 of 2008, the defendants filed a Second Appeal in S.A.No.76 of 2014 and this court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court and dismissed the Second Appeal.

7. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an Execution Petition in R.E.P. No.227 of 2011 to execute the decree granted in O.S. No.498 of 2003. In the said Execution Petition, the defendants filed an application in R.E.A. No.180 of 2014 seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the defendants have stated that the plaintiffs have wrongly mentioned the extent of the property as 0.01 are. Further, they have stated that the 1st petitioner/1st defendant purchased an extent of 5 cents on 15.07.1983. the defendants have also stated that, in I.A.No.1559 of 2005, filed by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court, the Advocate Commissioner has found that there is an encroachment in respect of the terraced house. Further, they have stated that if the property is measured, it could be found that the plaintiffs are entitled to only half of the land in the suit property.

8. The plaintiffs filed their counter, before the Executing Court disputing the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, wherein they have stated that the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.49 of 2008 was confirmed by this court in the Second Appeal in S.A.No.76 of 2012 by the judgment dated 08.09.2014.

9. Since the judgment and decree passed in S.A.No.76 of 2012 has not been challenged by the defendants, the same has become final.

10. That apart, even before the Trial Court, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Advocate Commissioner also inspected the suit property and filed his report and plans, which were marked as Exs.C1 to C4. The courts below also took into consideration the Advocate Commissioner's report and plans and decreed the suit.

11. When the Commissioner's report was considered by the courts below and when a decree was passed against the defendants, they cannot seek for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the second time in the proceedings. If a Commissioner is appointed at the execution stage, it would only create confusion in deciding the issue involved in the Execution Petition. If the defendants are aggrieved over the Commissioner's report, they could have filed an application to scrap the report, which was not done by the defendants. The defendants cannot wait till the filing of the Execution Petition and file the application seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. It is settled posi