ORDER

(1) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated

03.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.95/2018 in O.S.No.116/2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengam.

(2) Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

(3) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the Suit in O.S.No.116/2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengam.

(4) The said Suit was filed for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the Suit property. The case of the plaintiff in the Plaint is that the plaintiff is entitled to an extent of 26 cents in S.No.53/5 and another extent of 40 cents in S.No.53/1 out of an extent of 1.03 Acres. However, the property in S.No.53/5 is not described with reference to boundaries. Though the Suit is filed for an extent of 66 cents, it is admitted that UDR patta given to the plaintiff was only for a lesser extent, and still the plaintiff has filed the Suit for declaration of his title to an extent of 66 cents comprised in two S.Nos.53/5 and 53/1. It is stated by the plaintiff that the defendants are the legal heirs of one Duraisamy Naidu, son of one Chinnasamy Naidu. It is further stated that Chinnasamy Naidu purchased only to an extent of 63 cents and that his son Duraisamy Naidu obtained patta for an extent of 71 cents and falsely claim right to the excess extent without being in possession.

(5) A Written Statement was filed by the 1st defendant specifically stating that the property comprised in S.No.53/1 belong to one Lakshminarayanan Chettiyar and his brother Gopalakrishnan Chettiyar. It is also stated that the first defendant's father in law by name Chinnasamy Naidu purchased 64 cents out of an extent of 1.03 in S.No.53/1 for a valuable consideration under registered Sale Deed dated 05.03.1964.

(6) It is further stated that the property was described in the Sale Deed with the reference to specific boundaries. It is contended that the recitals in the Sale Deed dated 05.03.1964, though states that an extent of 64 cents was conveyed, the actual extent within the boundary is 71 cents. Therefore, it is stated that Chinnasamy Naidu was in possession and enjoyment of 71 cents from the date of purchase. It is further, stated that the plaintiff 's father purchased the property under a subsequent Sale Deed dated 20.11.1974 and that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as per the boundary description in the Sale Deed.

(7) After filing the Written Statement, the defendants filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.95/2018 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the Suit property with the assistance of the surveyor to measure S.No.53/1A and S.No.53/1B and to note down the existence of permanent boundaries and other physical features and to submit a Report along with the plan. The application was contested by the revision petitioner on many grounds. One of the main objections was regarding the request to measure the lands as per the sub division.

(8) It is further stated that the defendants cannot be permitted to seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner after the commencement of the trial. Stating that witnesses have been examined on the side of parties, it is contended that the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is highly belated and to protract the proceedings.

(9) The said application however, was allowed by the Lower Court by issuing warrant to the Commissioner directing the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and to note down the property of defendant measuring an extent of 0.29.0 hectares in S.No.53/1A and the property of plaintiff measuring an extent of 0.23.0 hectares in S.No.53/1B by the assistance of surveyor and to note down the permanent boundary if any in existence in between the properties of plaintiff and defendants both comprised in S.No.53/1. Aggrieved by the order of the Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

(10) Learned counsel appearing for t