In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:12.07.2006 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.976 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 M. Lakshmana Mudaliar .. Petitioner/Defendant vs. 1. Rajammal 2. Pattammal 3. Nallammal 4. Prema .. Respondents/Plaintiffs Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.01.2006 made in I.A.No.16 of 2006 in O.S.No.149 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Tirupur. For petitioner : Mr. D. Selvaraj for Mr. C.S. Saravanan ORDER The above revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a defendant in the said suit, which is pending from 2001. The learned Subordinate Judge, after finding that there is no difficulty in identifying the schedule of property on the part of the plaintiffs and further finding that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner at this stage, i.e., after commencement of trial is not warranted, dismissed the said application. I am in agreement with the said conclusion. Even otherwise, when the respondents / plaintiffs claim certain relief, it is for them to establish the same by letting acceptable oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, the apprehension of the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, is misconceived; there is no error or infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, the revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected MP., is also dismissed. kh Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Subordinate Judge Tiruppur C.R.P.(PD)No.976/06 TM(CO) RVL 27.07.2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/