ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.9 of 2021 in O.S.No.672 of 2020 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore on 10.08.2021.

2. I.A.No.9 of 2021 was filed under Section 75 read with Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 CPC for appointing Advocate Commissioner with basic knowledge of computer operating system to visit item Nos. 1 and 4 of the suit properties to verify and check all the records and registers including stock book and repair register book etc., from 01.04.2019, take the print out, CCTV camera back up, which are available and file a printout with a detailed report. This petition was filed by the first respondent/fourth defendant against the petitioners/defendants 1,2,3 and 5. Affidavit filed in support of the petition states that the first respondent is one of the co-sharers and she is also seeking partition of the suit properties. Second respondent herein, as plaintiff filed I.A.No.4 of 2020 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to visit the two shops namely item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit properties, to inspect the books of account and to take copies thereof to produce before the court. The contesting respondents filed counter and additional counter and submitted that accounts are maintained digitally and account books are not available. A private auditor's report was also filed with additional counter. Argument was partly heard in I.A.No.4 of 2020, objection was taken by the contesting respondents for appointing a chartered accountant by the Advocate Commissioner. First respondent/fourth defendant's son H.S.Pranav visited item No.1 of the suit properties and he observed that the second petitioner was diverting the business from the first item shop to the fourth item shop. Fake sales are being done without bills, CCTV camera was changed, actual sales are not reflected in the accounts and proper accounts are not maintained. Bar code tags were removed and replaced by the second petitioner with an intention to destroy the evidence. Material evidence is being destroyed and self-serving reports are obtained to cover up the illegal operations.

Computers in item No.4 of the suit property should be inspected and entries would reveal the diversion. Initially. the second petitioner brain washed the first respondent and after knowing his dishonest approach, first respondent came out of his clutches and engaged her own counsel. Their father's last wish was that item No.1 of the suit properties should be entrusted to the daughters, respondents 1 and 2. Second petitioner is preventing the respondents from accessing item No.1. In the said circumstances, Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed to inspect the digital accounts, stocks and bank accounts maintained by M/s.Karpagam Aparana Maligai (item No.1) and M/s.Karpagam Jewellers (item No.4). Commissioner should take assistance of chartered accountant in this task. Therefore, this petition.

3. This petition was contested by the petitioners stating that the application filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for collecting evidence is not maintainable in law. This application is filed in collusion with the second respondent, who already filed an application for appointment of Commissioner in I.A.No.4 of 2020. The petitioners filed two copies of balance sheet, physical stock statement dated

20.01.2021 given by chartered accountant concerning item No.1 of the suit properties. The first petitioner appeared in person and contested the claim of the second respondent. Therefore, that petition was not pressed by the second respondent unconditionally. First respondent was also a party to I.A.No.4 of 2020 and she has not raised any objection while that petition was not pressed. Therefore, she cannot not now seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner again. First petitioner is running item No.1 of the suit properties as proprietrix and her son, the second petitioner is helping her. First respondent requested the first petitioner for trai