The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.385 of 2013 on the file of learned the District Munsif, Musiri and in the suit, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs sought for declaration among other various reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.858 of 2014 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and note down its measurements with the assistance of a Surveyor and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, stating that there is no need to consider appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in this case, as there is no dispute between the parties regarding identification of suit properties and the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to collect evidence through Advocate Commissioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for R1 and the learned Government Advocate for R5 to R8. There is no representation for R2 to R4.

3. It is the case of the revision petitioners that originally, the suit schedule properties were owned by their father Kathaperumal Nattar, who inherited the p