A Trial Court may appoint an Advocate Commissioner even if prior applications existed in earlier suits about different survey numbers, as adjudication may require new assessments.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order order dated 14.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif, Mettur.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.6 of 2019 before the District Munsif Court, Mettur. The suit has been filed by the 1^st respondent as plaintiff, for the relief of declaration of title and consequential injunction and other reliefs pertaining to the property comprised in S.No.118/4B, New S.No.118/4B3B, measuring 2 cents, which has been set out in schedule 'B' of the plaint. The plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2022 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioners by filing a detailed counter and also marking documents vide Ex.R1 to R5. The Trial Court has proceeded to allow the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, as against which the present revision has been filed before this Court.

3. I have heard Mr.S.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Elangovan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 3 to 6.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court has erroneously allowed the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, disregarding the fact that the plaintiff has earlier filed a suit against the petitioners and other legal heirs in O.S.No.183 of 2001 in respect of the property comprised in S.No.118/2 in the same Village. In the said suit, the allegations made by the 1^st respondent was that the revision petitioners and other legal heirs were disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the said suit and report and rough sketch have also been filed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.137 of 2003 in the said suit to include the property in S.No.118/4 measuring 2 cents, which according to the revision petitioners, is a cart track, which is situate in the land belonging to the petitioners and the 1^st respondent as plaintiff. The said application for amendment was allowed by the Trial Court. However, subsequently, the suit came to be dismissed for default and it was restored after lapse of three years. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed one more amendment application, seeking the relief of declaration and recovery of possession with regard to S.No.118/4 (2 cents). The said application came to be dismissed, pursuant to which the 1^st respondent withdrew the suit on 06.08.2010 and after lapse of nine years, he has chosen to file the present suit, suppressing the earlier proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would further state that in respect of very same property, the earlier suit was filed and the same was withdrawn and now the present vexatious suit has been filed, which has been hotly contested by the revision petitioners. He would further contend that the Trial Court failed to see that the Advocate Commissioner's report filed in the earlier proceedings was also brought to the notice of the Trial Court and without considering the same, the Trial Court has allowed the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would state that the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, finding it necessary that a report of the Advocate Commissioner would be of invaluable assistance to ad