ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.443 of 2014 in O.S.No.120 of 2014, on the file of the Sub-Judge at Tambaram, wherein, the petitioner herein has filed a petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to measure the property with the help of qualified Surveyor and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner has preferred this present Civil Revision Petition.

3. According to the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit, he filed a suit for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction. Before filing the suit, he came to know about the encroachment made by the defendants through the surveyor and thereafter, filed the suit. In order to find out the correct encroachment and to note down the physical features, the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is very essential and the Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that already the surveyor had measured the property as per the plaint pleadings. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner is very essential to this case but the Trial Court failed to consider the same and dismissed the petition. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

4. According to the respondents/defendants, the property belongs to the first respondent and he never encroached the property. The first respondent purchased the property in the year 1980 and he was in enjoyment of the property by constructing compound wall. The petitioner/plaintiff purchased the property in the year 2003 and there is no record of encroachment as alleged by the petitioner and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before the Trial Court, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on both sides. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the suit is filed for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction. The first defendant encroached the property of the plaintiff and thereby, to measure and note down the physical features, the appointing Advocate Commissioner is very essential and by appointing the Advocate Commissioner, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. But the Trial Court failed to consider the same and erroneously dismissed the petition and hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

7.1. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment in Shanmugathai vs. Kamalammal and another in C.R.P.(PD) Nos.4252 and 4253 of 2012, on the file of this Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would contend that the first respondent/first defendant has purchased the property in the year 1980 itself and thereafter constructed the compound wall in the property and he never encroached any portion of the property belongs to the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff has purchased the property in the year 2003 and prior to the purchase of property, the compound wall was constructed therefore, there is no question of encroachment would arise. Even according to the pleadings, already the petitioner/plaintiff had measured the property through the surveyor and thereby, once again, the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for measuring the property. The Trial Court also consider the above said aspects and correctly dismissed the petition. Hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.

10. It is submitted by the respondents that there was a compound wall constructed by them. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, the said compound wall was constructed in the petitioner's property and thereby the respondents encroached the property. The suit is filed for relief of declarati