1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2306 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 M.John Bosco .. Petitioner Vs. 1.V.Marian 2.Amala Rani 3.D.Pushparaj 4.Thommai Antony 5.Santhana Michael 6.Vargheese 7.Antonyraj 8.Arul Xaviour 9.M.Chellasamy 10.Eugin Nirmala 11.Bama 12.Edward Kennedy 13.Maria Theresammal .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 15.09.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.45 of 2011 in Original Suit No.294 of 2010 by the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Madhusudhanan ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 15.09.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.45 of 2011 in Original Suit No.294 of 2010 by the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.294 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose mentioned therein. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.45 of 2011 in Original Suit No.294 of 2010 and the order passed therein by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission on the basis of the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the suit property is comprised in old Survey No.2677 and new Survey No.J1/5-2, admeasuring 23 ¾ cents and in which the defendants are not having any manner of right, title and interest and they filed their written statement, wherein it has been stated that the identity of the suit property given in the plaint is erroneous and in order to prove the fact that the identify of the suit property given in the plaint is correct, the present petition has been filed so as to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into paragraph No.4 of the written statement filed by the defendants, wherein it has been specifically stated that the defendants 9 to 13 are the real owners of old Survey No.2677, wherein they have put up three houses by way of spending Rs.23,00,000/- and they have also obtained separate service connection. Therefore it is quite clear that on the side of the contesting defendants a definite stand has been taken to the effect that they are the owners of the suit property. Nowhere in the written statement, it has been specifically stated that the identity of the suit property given in the plaint, is erroneous. Considering the fact that the contesting defendants have claimed rival title and interest over the suit property and also considering that the identity of the suit property given in the plaint has not been seriously denied on the side of the defendants, question of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner does not arise and the Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.45 of 2011 in Original Suit No.294 of 2010 by the Third Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Third Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil. +1CC TO MR.L.MADHUSUDANAN, ADVOCATE SR.43108 Smn : SR : 23.12.2011 : 2p/3c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2306 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 09.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/