IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 30.09.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(PD) No.3304 of 2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 1.A.Peria Kaliappa Gounder 2.Muthuammal 3.Sakunthala 4.Jothimani ... Petitioners/Defendants Vs. Karumalaiappa Gounder ... Respondent/Plaintiff This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Order dated 21.08.2008 made in I.A.No.537 of 2008 in O.S.No.138 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi. For Petitioner : M/s.V.S.Usha Rani O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants to set aside the Order dated 21.08.2008 made in I.A.No.537 of 2008 in O.S.No.138 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi. 2. The defendants in O.S.No.138 of 2008 are the revision petitioners before this court. The suit in O.S.No.138 of 2008 has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for permanent injunction. Written statement has been filed by the petitioners/defendants and the suit is being contested. Pending suit, an application in I.A.No.537 of 2008 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to measure the petition property with the help of surveyor and to fix the northern boundary and to file his report with a plan. The said application was resisted by the petitioners/defendants by filing a counter. The trial Court by order dated 21.08.2008 allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed by the defendants in the suit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have also gone through the documents filed in support of his submissions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in a suit for bare injunction, an appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not necessary. He further adds that when the respondent/plaintiff has not established his title over the suit property, if the commissioner measures the property with the help of a qualified surveyor, it will impliedly give strength to the falsification of the respondents right to the suit property. The failure on the part of the trial Court to advert to this important fact vitiates the order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In a suit for bare injunction, an application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and the trial Court by its order dated 21.08.2008 allowed the application holding that appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features would not cause any prejudice to the petitioners/defendants and it would only reduce the burden of the Court in arriving at a right conclusion. 6. Admittedly, the trial Court appointed the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to measure the suit property with the help of a qualified surveyor. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, this will not cause prejudice to the revision petitioners. When an order passed by the trial Court has not caused any prejudice to the other side, it is not open to the other side to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence, in my opinion, the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rrg To The District Munsif Court, Pollachi. GGK (CO) km/21.11. CRP(PD)No.3304 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/