ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The second defendant, aggrieved by the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner at the instance of the plaintiff, is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the fact that earlier the plaintiff had filed a suit for a bare injunction, which was dismissed on 05.10.2017, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove possession of the suit property and consequently was not entitled to permanent injunction.

4. The learned counsel further states that, suppressing even the factum of filing of the said suit, let alone the adverse decree passed against the respondent/plaintiff, the present suit has been filed as if the plaintiff continues to be in physical possession, alleging encroachment made by the revision petitioner.

5. He further states that indirectly, the petitioners are attempting to collect evidence. Though the application only states that the Commissioner has to note down the physical features of the suit property, especially since the allegations of the plaintiff are that the defendants have encroached on the property after removing th