The Court emphasized the importance of enabling the measurement and identification of offending constructions by directing the Advocate Commissioner to re-inspect the property with the assistance of a surveyor.

1. The instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 13.02.2012 passed in E.A.No.334 of 2009 in E.P.No.108 of 2006 in O.S.No.104 of 1997 by the District Munsif Court, Panruti.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the revision:

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.104 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti. He filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of the suit schedule property and he has also sought for recovery of possession from the respondents 3 to 7, who are the defendants 3 to 7 in the suit. After contest, the suit was partly allowed in favour of the petitioner on 22.03.2006. The trial Court granted the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction but disallowed the relief of possession. The petitioner filed E.P.No.108 of 2006 in O.S.No.104 of 1997 to execute the decree dated 22.03.2006 passed in O.S.No.104 of 1997. After receipt of the notice in the execution proceedings in E.P.No.108 of 2006, the respondents 3 to 7, who are the judgment debtors in the execution petition, filed a petition under Section 47 of CPC in E.A.No.90 of 2007 questioning the terms of decree. The said E.A. was dismissed by the Executing Court on 22.04.2008. Aggrieved by the dismissal of E.A.No.90 of 2007, the respondents 4 to 7 preferred a revision before this Court in CRP No.2472 of 2008, which was dismissed by this Court on 01.10.2009 by confirming the order passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.90 of 2007 in E.P.No.108 of 2006. However, the decree holder viz., the petitioner herein was given liberty to file an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the nature and extent of the offending construction put up by the respondents 2 to 5 on the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property for the purpose of ascertaining the nature and extent of the offending construction in the suit lane and to mark the extent of the offending construction and to file his report after ascertaining the offending construction in the suit lane and draw a plan thereto.

3. A counter was also filed by the respondents 2 to 5 in E.A.No.334 of 2009, where in, they have stated in paragraph – 3 that a surveyor to help the Advocate Commissioner will have to be appointed to measure the suit schedule property. The Executing Court by its order dated 28.08.2010 in E.A.No.334 of 2009 directed the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and file his report as per the prayer sought for by the petitioner in E.A.No.334 of 2009. After inspecting the property, the Advocate Commissioner filed his report expressing his inability to execute the warrant since the description of the suit schedule property is not sufficient to identify the offending construction. Memo of instructions was also filed on 21.11.2010 by the petitioner to the advocate commissioner's report stating that the suit schedule property is having measurement of 87' x 3' in length and breadth and the same is situated at the southern side of the petitioner's property i.e. 87 x 23 feet. It has also been stated that the total extent of the property is 87' x 26 in length and breadth, in which, the common lane which belongs to the petitioner and the respondents is having the measurement in 87' x 3' at the southern side in which the offending portion of the construction has been constructed. In that memo of instructions filed by the petitioner in E.A.No.334 of 2009, he has requested the Executing Court to direct the advocate commissioner to revisit the suit schedule property and measure the offending portion of construction. According to the petitioner, the advocate commissioner has not perused the plaint, documents and the judgment before filing his report expressing his inability to measure the property and identify the offending construction. The Executing Court, after considering the advocate commissioner's report as