IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-03-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.No.828 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 1.Krishnaraj 2.Asokan 3.Sukumaran 4.Sekar 5.Seenuvasan 6.Siyamala 7.Virudhambal 8.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioners/Defendants Versus Suguna .. Respondent/Plaintiff PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 11.2.2010, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, made in I.A.NO.265 of 2009, in O.S.No.124 of 2008. For Petitioners : Ms.N.Mala For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 11.2.2010, made in I.A.No.265 of 2009, in O.S.No.124 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam. 2. Even though various grounds have been raised in the present civil revision petition, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the order, dated 11.2.2010, passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, is cryptic in nature. She has also submitted that no opportunity had been given to the petitioners before the impugned order, dated 11.2.2010, had been passed. 3. By the order, dated 11.2.2010, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, had stated, after considering the objections raised by the petitioners herein, that the appointment of an advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ commissioner is necessary to note the physical features of the property in question, to arrive at a fair decision, in respect of the disputes arising for his consideration. 4. The learned counsel had relied on a decision of this Court, reported in K.G.Palanisamy and others V. S.Kathiresan ( 1993 II MLJ 383), to state that the trial Court cannot pass a cryptic order in appointing an advocate commissioner, without considering the objections raised by the respondents in the application for such appointment of an advocate commissioner. 5. However, this Court finds that the said decision is not applicable to the present case, as the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, had given sufficient reasons for the appointment of an advocate commissioner in his order, dated 11.2.2010. In such circumstances, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. However, it would be open to the petitioners to raise their objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, if they deem it fit to do so, in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. csh To 1. The Principal Sub Ordinate Judge, Tindivanam. C.R.P.No.828 of 2010 NG (CO) RH (19.3.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/