ORDER :

PRAYER: This petition is filed under Article 227 of Civil Procedure Code, against the order in I.A. No. 146 of 2012 in O.S. No. 23 of 2012, dated 14.03.2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Uthamapalayam.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and final order passed by the Court below in I.A. No. 146 of 2012, allowing an application filed by the respondents, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, to note down the standing crops that are present in the property and to file a report.

2. The respondents filed a suit seeking for the relief of bare injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. It is the case of the respondents that they are cultivating the lands and that there are standing crops in the property.

3. The respondents filed an application before the Court below under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, to note down the standing crops in the property and to file a report. This application was allowed by the Court below and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision has been filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents should prove their case by marking the relevant revenue records that they are cultivating in the property and that cannot be indirectly done by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to identify the standing crops. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents cannot be allowed to collect evidence in the form of appointing an Advocate Commissioner and the same goes against the very object of Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the order passed by the Court below requires interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents have sufficient documents to show that they are in possession of the property and that they are cultivating crops in the property. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners took a stand that the land is a Tharisu Land (barren land) and there are no standing crops in the property. That apart, the petitioners also created cloud in the title over the property. Therefore, it became necessary for the respondents to file an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the Court below has appointed an Advocate Commissioner only to see whether there are standing crops available in the property and file his report. This report, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, will not in any way amount to collecting evidence and it will not in any way prejudice the interest of the petitioners and it will help the Court below in arriving at fair and just decision in the suit.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and materials available on record.

7. The respondents want an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed only on the ground that the petitioners have raised a plea that the property is a Tharisu land and there are no standing crops in the property. The respondents want an Advocate Commissioner to visit the property and note down as to whether there are standing crops in the property and thereafter, to file a report. In the considered view of this Court, this attempt made by the respondents to get an Advocate Commissioner appointed, will indirectly amount to finding out who is in possession of the property and will also amount to collecting evidence.

8. Useful reference can be made to the Judgment of this Court in Chinnathambi and Others vs. Anjalai, 2006 (5) CTC 494. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“6. We shall now consider some of the decisions rendered by various Courts in this regard.

(i) In a decision reported in Puttappa vs. Ramappa, AIR 1996 Karnataka 257, in paragraph 3, the Court held as follows:

“3. A Commissioner cannot be appointed to find