The appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner is essential for clarifying property disputes and measuring areas in cases of alleged unauthorized constructions.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned XI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.7718 of 2017 in O.S.No.3150 of 2017.

2. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.3150 of 2017 before the City Civil Court, Chennai against the respondents/defendants for the following reliefs:

a) For a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to an additional 300 sq.ft of super built-up area, more fully described in Schedule "C" of the property.

b) For a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the store room located at the terrace, marked as CDEF, as per the sketch annexed to the Schedule of the plaint.

c) For a mandatory injunction directing the first and fourth defendants to earmark an additional 300 sq.ft of super built-up area, more fully described in Schedule "C" of the property, or in the alternative, to pass a decree directing the first and fourth defendants to jointly and severally pay suitable compensation to the plaintiffs, as determined by the Court after an enquiry conducted by the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner in respect of the Schedule "A" property, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the plaint until realization of the said sum.

d) For a permanent injunction restraining the first, second and third defendants, and their agents, from holding any meetings of the Apartment Association under the name "Ramana Flat Owners' Association" or any other name, comprising the owners of the respective apartments on the Schedule "A" property.

3. Along with the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.7718 of 2017 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner with the help of a Registered Surveyor to measure the undivided share and super built-up area of all the owners of the respective flats in Schedule 'A' property including the common area available and file a report before the Court. The learned XI Assistant City Civil Judge, after hearing both side parties, dismissed the said I.A.No. 7718 of 2017 vide the impugned order.

4. Mr.Sundar Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, submitted that the petitioners/plaintiffs, who are husband and wife and joint purchasers, are currently enjoying a lesser measurement of the flat than what they had purchased; that the common areas around the building and on the terrace were to be treated as common by all the owners, with access granted to all, but unfortunately, this was not the case; that in October 2015, the first defendant commenced construction of a storage room on the terrace, specifically in the portion above the ceiling of the first floor flat on the western side, using the staircase inside the first floor of the flat, without the knowledge of the petitioners/plaintiffs; and that the storage room was later improved and fully constructed, measuring approximately 10 x 10 feet, and was used for housing the household articles of the first respondent; and that in May 2015, the Corporation of Chennai took measurements of the floor area of the respective apartments in Schedule A and thereafter uploaded the details onto their website as follows:

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs submitted that the Petitioners were assured 30% of the undivided share, while the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents were allotted 25% of the undivided share along with the corresponding super built-up area, representing the share of the original owner. On the other hand, the 1^st Respondent, who is the subsequent purchaser from the 6^th to 8^th Defendants, has obtained 45% of the undivided share and the corresponding super built-up area, representing the share of the nominee of the buil