AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—No representation on behalf of either side.
Aggrieved by a order dated 18.8.2001 made in I.A.No.401 of 2001 refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in suit O.S.No.278 of 1998 laid by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction, the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred the above revision.
According to the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, they have constructed a building in the suit property twenty years ago, obtained electricity service connection and have been paying electricity charges and also the house tax. It is the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that they had also planted coconut trees in the suit property, and it is to verify the above facts, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs sought for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to note the physical features of the same in I.A.No.401 of 2001, which was resisted by the respondents/defendants specifically on the ground that where there is no dispute regarding the identity of the suit property, no commission can be issued, and a commission is totally unwarranted.
Appreciating the contention of the respondents/ defendants and also deriving support of the ratio laid down in R.SATYANARAYANA RAO AND 3 OTHERS Vs. M.K.MANOHARAN @ K.MANOHARAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2000 (3) L.W. 787, the learned District Munsif, Dharmapurai, by order dated 18.8.2001 refused to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.
In R.SATYANARAYANA RAO AND 3 OTHERS case, referred supra, it is held that when the nature of the suit property is not in dispute, there is no necessity for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify the character of the suit property. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the reason of the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, in dismissing the application I.A.No.401 of 2001, is well found as per the ratio laid down in R.SATYANARAYANA RAO case, referred supra.
Hence, finding no merits, this revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.19321 of 2001 is also dismissed.