1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD)(MD) No.2387 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MD)No.1 of 2011 Charles .. Petitioner /1st Respondent/Plaintiff Vs. 1.B.Christopher Justin ..Respondent/Petitioner/2nd Defendant 2.J.Ashokan .. 2ndRespondent/2nd Respondent/1st Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 21.10.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.402 of 2010 in Original Suit No.366 of 2009 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.F.Deepak ORDER The order dated 21.10.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.402 of 2010 in Original Suit No.366 of 2009 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.366 of 2009 on the file of the Court below for the relief of permanent 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 after considering all the contentions raised on either side has allowed the petition. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the first respondent/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.402 of 2010 in Original Suit No.366 of 2009, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that various legal proceedings have already been initiated in respect of the suit property, wherein so many Advocate Commissioners have been appointed and they inspected the suit property and filed their reports and plan and those reports and plans have been exhibited, but the Court below without considering the earlier Commissioners' reports and plans has erroneously allowed the present petition and therefore the 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 the averments made in the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.402 of 2010, wherein at paragraph No.3, it has been specifically stated that in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the suit property a passage is running, but the plaintiff has obliterated the same by way of removing big boulders and stones and therefore the width of the passage has become reduced and only for the purpose of noting down the physical features, the present petition has been filed. 6. Considering the fact that the specific case of the petitioner/second defendant in the present petition is that some obliterations have been made with regard to passage, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the suit property is very much essential, even though the relief of permanent injunction has been sought for. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that already several Advocate Commissioners have been appointed and they visited the suit property and filed their reports and plans and the same have been exhibited in the present petition. 8. It is a settled principle of law that the Commissioner's report and plan filed in earlier suit are inadmissible in evidence, if those documents have been marked without examining the previous Commissioner. In the instant case, a specific stand has been taken on the side of the petitioner/second defendant to the effect that some obliterations have been made in the alleged passage, which runs through the suit property. Therefore viewing from any angle, the order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. 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.402 of 2010 in Original Suit No.366 of 2009 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram is confirmed. The Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram is directed to dispose of Original Suit No.366 of 2009 before the end of February, 2012. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(A.S.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Munsif Court,Padmanabhapuram. Copy to: The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2387 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 smn/sma/28.12.2011/3c/2p 21.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/