JUDGEMENT
M.V.MURALIDARAN,J. -
(1.)The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.89 of 2015 on the file of the 1st Additional District Court (Full Additional Charge), Tuticorin and in the suit, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs sought for declaration along with several other reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed an application in I.A.No.165 of 2017 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and note down its measurements with the assistance of a Surveyor and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, stating that there is no need to consider appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in this case. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
(2.)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material documents available on record. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents/defendants.
(3.)It is the case of the revision petitioners that they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and they were also granted patta for the properties in question. When the suit schedule properties were allotted to the plaintiffs by their predecessors by way of an oral partition, the defendants have no rights or title whatsoever on the suit schedule properties under any pretext. It is the further case of the revision petitioners that pending the suit, they filed an application before the Trial Court for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the exact physical features of the suit properties. But the Trial Court, instead of exercising its discretion vested under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC, dismissed the said application.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.