Objections to Advocate Commissioner's report must precede re-issuance application.

Defendants 3 and 4 PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.127 or 2022 in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.1 of 2021, dated 7.3.2023, on the file of District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondent-1 : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj For Respondent-2 : Died For Respondent-3 : Mr.S.Venkatesh For Respondent-4 : No appearance

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.127 or 2022 in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.1 of 2021, dated 7.3.2023, on the file of District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram.

2.It is informed that the legal heirs of the deceased second respondent, Mr.Rathinasabapathy had alienated the property in favour of one Vasanathakannan, by way of registered document, dated 12.09.2022.The sale has happened pending the suit. Hence, whatever interest the deceased Rathnasabapathy had, has devolved on the fourth respondent, who has been impleaded as a party to the revision. A perusal of the records shows that the fourth respondent has aleady been impleaded on 6.3.2026.This, being a revision arising out of the interlocutory order, impleading of the purchaser will enure in favour of the party in the suit also. (See, HH Brij Indar Singh .vs. Lala Kanshi Ram AIR 1917 PC

156).The learned Munsif shall do the needful in the suit.

3.This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram, in dismissing the application filed for re-issuance of the Commissioner’s warrant.

4.The suit in O.S.No.1 of 2021 seeks the relief of declaration that the pathway designated as ‘ABCD’ in the plaint is a common pathway for the plaintiff and the defendants and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the usage of the common pathway by the Plaintiff. Pending the suit, the plaintiff took out an application in I.ANo.4 of 2021 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed. The Advocate Commisisoner submitted a report together with plan to the Court on 4.2.2021.The learned Judge granted time til 6.3.2021 for filing of objections. As objections were not filed, the application came to be closed on 6.3.2021. Thereafter, the first respondent/first defendant/Civil Revision petitioner took out an application for re-issuance of warrant on the ground that the report of the Advocate Commisisoner is bereft of any deails.The Civil Revision Petitioner sought the Court to direct the Advocate Commissioner to take the assistance of a Surveyor and the concerned Village Administrative Officer to identify the suit pathway on the basis of the registered Partition Deed and Settlement Deed, dated 27.8.1974 and 25.8.1988 respectively and to submit a fresh report.

This application was received in I.A.No.127 of 2022.

5.The plaintiff, who is the contesting respondent, did not oppose the said application. The learned Judge dismissed the same. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

6.I have heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, for the Civil Revision Petitioner, Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj, for the first respondent and Mr.S.Venkatesh, for the third respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.

7.Perusal of the endorsement made by the Court in I.A.No.4 of 2021, dated 6.3.2021 shows that no objection had been filed by the parties before the Court. It has been settled by the Judgment .

of this Court in the case of Vemba Gounder .vs Pooncholai Gounder, AIR 1996 Mad 347 that the proper procedure to be followed by a