An Advocate Commissioner’s appointment requires justifiable grounds; previous measurements render additional requests redundant.

ORDER

The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of his application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, has preferred the above C.R.P.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein below and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court.

The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.120 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam seeking declaration of his title to the suit property and consequently for permanent injunction.

(i) It is the plaintiff's case that he is in enjoyment and possesion of the suit property under a Gift Settlement Dated 29.12.2000 along with his wife, mother, sister and daugher. The 1^st defendant is an adjacent owner who owns a property to the East of the suit property. The 2^nd defendant is residing to the north of the plaintiff's house and the 3^rd defendant is residing on the western side of the plaintiff's house. The 4^th defendant owns the panchayat road which is on the south of the plaintiff's terrace house and vacant area. Though there are no reliefs claimed against the defendants 2 to

4, they have been added as proper parties in the suit.

(ii). The plaintiff would contend that the suit property measures 10.8 mtrs on the Northern side, 10 mtrs on the Southern side, 16.2 mtrs on the western side and 16 mtrs on the eastern side. The entire extent is in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the said property.

(iii) To secure the suit property, when the plaintiff was preparing to construct a compund wall on the eastern side of the property, the defendants with the intent to grab the property, had started causing disturbances. The plaintiff would submit that the property is enclosed by compound walls on all the other 3 sides and it is only on the eastern side that there is no wall. The 1^st defendant's house is to the east of the plaintiff's house. Between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant's house, there is a South-North lane. The plaintiff would submit that this extent can be measured by seeking the assistance of an Advocate Commissioner. The plaintiff had informed the police authorities about the illegal activities of the defendants in preventing the plaintiff from putting up the wall. The plaintiff had also remitted necessary fees to the revenue authorities on 18.10.2010 to survey the suit properties. The Surveyor has visited and measured the propeties after giving notice to the defendants and others. The plaintiff was also provided with a map along with measurements. The suit property is a vacant land which runs in a South-North direction to the east of the plaintiff's house. There is a vacant area in front of the plaintiff's tiled house as well as in front his terrace house. The disputed vacant lane runs adjacent to the property of the 1^st defendant's house on the western side.

(iv) The plaintiff's contention that the 1^st defendant had put up a house by occupying the lane to an extent of 2 ½ feet in width and 53 feet in length and is now claiming that the existing 3 ½ width by 53 feet length is common for whitewashing a wall. The plaintiff by way of an amendment has made it clear that he is not taking any claim that the common well that has been encroached by the 1^st defendant to the width of 2 ½ feet and the length of 53 feet. The plaintiff would submit that he had initially filed the suit only for an injunction. However, the trial Court in I.A.No.4 of 2019 (amendment petition), had observed that even if the relief is granted, the plaintiff cannot get a proper relief as there is no prayer for declaration and mandatory injunction. Therefore, the plaintiff had subsequently included the relief of delaration.

3. After filing of the written statement wherein the defendants had disputed the right of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed an application seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commisisoner to measure the suit pr