S. Palanivelu, J.— The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 389 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai town. It is a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Pending trial of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property and also note down the defendant’s property and also other aspects.

2. In the affidavit it is stated that ‘A’ schedule property belongs to her and ‘B’ schedule property belongs to defendants. The petitioner’s property is in door No. 32/1, who demolished the same in order to construct a new building. In the rough sketch a portion marked as ABCD is the plaintiff’s house and EF is western boundary compound wall. Door No. 32 is situated on the western side of the plaintiff’s house and it is shown as GHIJ in the 2nd rough sketch. The suit property is shown as LMJO. The plaintiff has left 4 feet space between EF compound wall and her house. The house in door No. 32 was also constructed 4 feet away from the plaintiff’s EF compound wall.

3. When the defendants started construction, the plaintiff requested the defendants not to put up any construction adjacent to her western compound wall. On 14.4.2012 the defendants have started digging adjacent to the western compound wall of her house and put up iron rods in three places and they attempted to put up construction adjacent to western compound wall without leaving any space between the western compound wall and the proposed eastern wall. Hence, an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed to note down the physical features about the property and also the construction activities of the defendants.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the defendants it is stated that the petitioner does not request the defendants not to put up construction in the suit property. The petitioner is no way connected with their property. She has made an unsustainable plea that if the defendants have allowed to put up construction, her property value would be decreased. She has no locus standi to file the suit itself. The defendants got building plan approval from the Madurai Corporation. There is no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and hence, the present petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai has dismissed the application by stating that there is no dispute over the identification of the property and if there is any doubt on the identification or location, then local investigation is necessary and that there is no necessity for such appointment. Against which, this petition is filed.

7. The point for consideration is whether Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed as requested by the plaintiff.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that inasmuch as the proposed construction and the part of the construction made by the defendants violates the Municipal Rule s that is to say a particular extent of space has to be left open and if the defendants are allowed to make such construction, that will affect the rights of the plaintiff by getting light and air.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that since the defendants have obtained approved plan from the Municipal Corporation, they are making construction as per the plan and the petitioner in no way affected and because of the adjacent owner of the property who has left 4 feet by the side of her house she is also necessary party.

10. It is beyond dispute that a person who is making construction is expected to observe the rules and regulations prevailing then by leaving particular space. In case, if he violates the rules, the Municipality will take action against them. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that if C schedule property measuring 4 feet north south and 95 feet east west belongs to the defendants, they are not supposed to make applications so as to vi