This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 02.12.2015 made in I.A. No. 984 of 2015 in O.S.No.527 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur.

2. The petitioner is first defendant in O.S.No.527 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur. The first respondent, plaintiff filed the above suit for partition of the suit schedule properties and separate possession and for a direction to the second respondent to render accounts of the suit properties and business from the date of the suit till delivery of the possession.

3. According to the first respondent, all the properties and business are joint family properties. Along with the plaint, first respondent filed I.A.No.984 of 2015 for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner to take inventory of the business conducted in joint family properties and take note of the accounts. According to the first respondent, the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 are collecting rental income as well as income from the business. But, they are not furnishing the accounts and giving share to the first respondent.

4. The petitioner filed counter affidavit and opposed the said application and submitted that it is for the petitioner to prove all the averments made in the plaint and affidavit. The petitioner has stated that first respondent has not given any reason for taking inventory of the business mentioned therein. He has not mentioned for what purpose inventory is needed in the affidavit and also not given any description of the property.

5. The learned Judge considering the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit and materials on record allowed the application, appointing an Advocate Commissioner holding that the petitioner has not specifically denied the averments made by the first respondent in para nos. 3 to 14 in the affidavit and para nos. 1 to 11 in the plaint and business mentioned in the plaint as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and has not denied that business mentioned in the petition, situate only in properties of item Nos.1 to 11 mentioned in the plaint.

6. Against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Judge appointing an advocate Commissioner is beyond the scope of the suit and application. The learned Judge failed to see that there is no reference about the business unit in the plaint schedule properties and finding of the learned Judge that it has to be persumed that the business unit are in or other properties is errenous. The first respondent has sought for partition of immovable properties set out in the plaint schedule properties. The first respondent made certain references about the business unit in para nos. 15 and 16 of the plaint and that will not be a ground for ordering inspection of business units. The learned Judge did not properly appreciate the scope of order 39 Rule 7 of CPC and the learned Judge failed to see that the said provision is not intended to take inventory of running business and as per Section 94 of CPC Court can pass orders and has no power to appoint Advocate Commissioner. The learned Judge while appointing Advocate Commissioner has permitted roving enquiry which is contrary to law and conclusion of learned Judge that other particulars are only formal defects is errenous. The learned Judge failed to see that the defendant has not filed written statement with regard to business unit and inspection by Advocate Commissioner will spoil the reputation of the business. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments:-

(i) AIR 1958 Raj 218 (Ramswarup Vs. Mst. Kesar), wherein para nos. 8 and 13, it has been held as follows:-

8. We have given our careful consideration to the said arguments, but we find ourselves unable to accept it as correct. In our o