ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 15.10.2019 made in I.A.No.400 of 2019 in I.A.No.1144 of 2013 in O.S.No.224 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 15.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.400 of 2019 in I.A.No.1144 of 2013 in O.S.No.224 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the Suit and the respondent/plaintiff instituted a Suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

3. During the pendency of the Suit, the revision petitioners / defendants filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which was considered and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Advocate Commissioner submitted his report on 27.07.2015. Thereafter, the trial Court granted an opportunity to the parties to submit their objections, if any on the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. For the purpose of providing an opportunity to file objections, the suit was adjourned on 16.11.2015, 15.12.2015 and 20.01.2016. Finally, the case was listed by the trial Court on 29.01.2016 and no objection was filed by either of the parties to the suit on that day. Consequently, the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1144 of 2013 was closed on 29.01.2016.

4. After a lapse of three and half (3 ½) years, the revision petitioners / defendants filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.400 of 2019 in I.A.No.1144 of 2013 to re-open the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1144 of 2013 for the purpose of receiving objections. The trial Court considered the issues and arrived at a conclusion that sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to file their objections and for that purpose, the case was adjourned on three occasions and finally on fourth occasion, on 29.01.2016, the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1144 of 2013 was closed. While so, the Interlocutory Application filed after a lapse of three and half (3 ½) years to re-open the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1144 of 2013 cannot be entertained. Thus, the Interlocutory Application was rejected by the trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners mainly contended that mere receipt of the objections would not cause any prejudice to the other party. The Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.400 of 2019 was filed for the purpose of receiving the objections and therefore, the trial Court has committed an error by not affording an opportunity to the revision petitioners to defend their case.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Vemba Gounder Vs. Pooncholai Gounder reported in [AIR 1996 Mad 347], wherein it has been held as follows :

“9. It is on the basis of Sub-rule (33) of “Rule 10 to Order 26, C.P.C., objections to the Commissioner's report are considered, and the Court has to pass an order as to whether it is satisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner or not. The question of issuing a second Commission is also based on the satisfaction entered by Court. Is the Court competent to issue a second Commission without passing any order under sub-rule (3) of Rule 10, Order 26, C.P.C. This question: has been considered in various decisions of this Court as well as by other High Courts. In one of the earliest decisions of this Court reported in AIR 1922 Madras 219 (Thottamma v. C.S. Subramaniyyam), this Court has held thus:--

“The duty of the Court, whenever a Commissioner's report is objected to, is to hear objections in open Court and to decide with the aid of such evidence as it might take if the valuation should be varied and in what direction; but if a Commissioner appointed under O.26, Civil Procedure Code has so totally misconceived his duties as to render his report and valuation useless as a basis for de