O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

This revision petition has been filed seeking to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 03.03.2017 made in I.A.No.10 of 2016 in O.S.No.336 of 2013 by the learned V Additional District Munisf Court, Coimbatore, dismissing the petition for appointment of the very same Commissioner to measure the second item of the schedule property in the suit.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.336 of 2013 which has been filed for a decree, restraining the respondents/defendants in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the first item of the suit property either by encroaching the property or by altering the physical features of the property and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendants to remove obstructions in the second item of the schedule property. The learned Counsel would further submit the petitioners/plaintiffs had earlier filed a petition seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.234 of 2013 to note down physical features of the scheduled plain property. The Court was pleased to pass an order for the appointment of Commissioner and a Commissioner was appointed to verify the physical features along with a Taluk Surveyor. The Advocate Commissioner had conducted inspection on 20.02.2014 in the presence of Counsels on either side, but, unfortunately at the time of inspection, the petitioners had produced only the xerox copy of the sale deed pertaining to the second item of the schedule property and it was not considered by the Advocate Commissioner and that the Taluk Surveyor had also failed to bring the revenue records pertaining to the property and thereby, the Advocate Commissioner in paragraph 7 of his report had stated that in respect of the second item of the schedule property no relevant documents were produced by either side and that the relevant revenue records in respect of the second item of the schedule property was also not available on that day. Subsequently, the petitioners had obtained a certified copy pertaining to the sale deed in respect of second item of the schedule property and thereby, the petitioners had filed I.A.No.10 of 2016 seeking for re-appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to measure the second item of the suit property with the assistance of a Surveyor according to the sale deed dated 26.02.1964 vide document No.477 of 1964, whereas, the trial Court holding that the Advocate Commissioner has held that the documents relating to second item of the schedule property were not produced by both the parties and that the details of the property were also not available and found in the records furnished by the Surveyor, had dismissed the same. The learned Counsel would submit that the petitioners have got a certified copy of the registered document pertaining to the year 1964 and though the survey number has not been stated, the boundaries of the property have been clearly mentioned in the documents and thereby, based on the boundaries mentioned in the document, the Advocate Commissioner can conduct a spot inspection along with a Surveyor and he can file his supplementary report about the property. He would further submit that it was really unfortunate that on the date of inspection the petitioners were not having the certified copies, thereby, he was unable to locate the property. Now the certified copies are available and that no harm would be caused to the other side, if re- inspection is conducted. He would further submit that the petitioners are not asking for appointment of a new Advocate Commissioner and that they are asking only for re-issuance of warrant to the very same Advocate Commissioner who had conducted the inspection earlier and he would pray for setting aside the order dated 03.03.2017 made in I.A.No.10 of 2016 and would also pray for a direction for issuance of warrant to the very