THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.NO.5505 OF 2009 ORDER This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-09-2009 passed in I.A.No.323 of 2009 in I.A.No.577 of 2009 in O.S.No.2921 of 2006 wherein and whereby the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC seeking to direct the Advocate- Commissioner to note down the physical features of suit schedule property more particularly the probable age of ‘A’ schedule and ‘B’ schedule property and also the probable age of the structure of two windows erected in the said ‘A’ schedule property by conducting the local inspection of the same with the help of a Civil Engineer/Architect, was dismissed. Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants. Plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the defendants stating that the defendants commenced construction over first and second floor without valid permission in their premises and got opened two windows across the old common wall and thereby caused disturbance to their privacy. Denying the allegations made by the plaintiffs the defendants filed written statement. While so, the plaintiffs filed a petition for appointment of an advocate-commissioner and the same was allowed and report was filed. But, the request of the plaintiffs for assessment of the age of the windows, was refused by the advocate-commissioner. Hence, they filed the present petition seeking to appoint the same advocate-commissioner for the purpose stated supra. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and after perusing the material available on record, the learned Judge having observed that it is up to the parties to prove when the windows were erected and whether there is any openings prior to filing of the suit or not, through examination and cross-examination of the parties but not basing on the report of the technical person and more over it is nothing but dragging of the proceedings, dismissed the petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the material available on record goes to show that as the Advocate-Commissioner was not competent person to assess the age of the wall or windows, she refused to incorporate the same in the report. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking appoint the same Advocate-Commissioner. There is no bar to the Court for calling second report when the first report of the advocate commissioner does not cover all the points. The plaintiffs did not raise any objections to the report filed by the Advocate-commissioner. Therefore, filing of the application seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner time and again on one pretext or other, is nothing but to drag on the proceedings. The findings arrived at by the learned Judge are perfectly justified and the order under revision needs no interference. There are no merits in this civil revision petition and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, as the suit is of the year 2006, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. ____________________________ (JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) rkk dated:26.11.2009