Judgment :- 1.The defendant, in OS.No.134/2000, on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, is the revision petitioner. 2.The respondents/plaintiffs filed an application in IA.No.389/2000 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and value the suit property, with the help of a Chartered Engineer and to file a report, with regard to the value of the buildings demolished and left undemolished in the suit property and the same was allowed by the court below, by order dated 5.9.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition. 3.The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they and 40 others put up constructions, in the suit property about 50 years ago and they have been enjoying the same. The defendant, without following any procedure, started to demolish the buildings in the suit property and only in the said circumstances, the suit was filed. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in IA.No.266/2000 and he had inspected the suit property on 5.7.2000 and also filed his report on 15.7.2000. In the application in IA.No.265/2000 filed by the plaintiff for the grant of injunction, an enquiry has been held and it was posted on 25.7.2000 for orders. In the meanwhile, on 19.7.2000, the defendant measured the suit property and fixed the boundaries and also started to demolish the constructions. On coming to know of the same, the plaintiffs filed an application in IA.No.332/2000 to pass an order in IA.No.265/2000 and the court passed an order to main status-quo, till order is being pronounced in IA.No.265/2000. The said fact was informed to the defendant. But, however, the defendant by 4.00 p.m. started to demolish the buildings on 19.7.2000 itself and when the order passed by the court below was shown to them, they have failed to take into consideration the said order. The defendant also continued the demolition work on 20.7.2000 and the defendant refused to hand over the articles to the plaintiffs, but, kept the same in a private marriage hall and a report was also lodged to the police. Thereafter, on 22.7.2000, after giving notice, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property and also filed a report on 24.7.2000. The defendant also continued the demolition work on 20.7.2000 and the defendant refused to hand over the articles to the plaintiffs, but, kept the same in a private marriage hall and a report was also lodged to the police. Thereafter, on 22.7.2000, after giving notice, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property and also filed a report on 24.7.2000. The Advocate Commissioner also noted down the buildings demolished and left undemolished in the suit property. But, however, he has not given the value for those buildings. Only in the said circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property, with the help of a Chartered Engineer and to file a report, stating the value of the buildings, demolished and left undemolished. 4.The defendant resisted the said application, by filing a counter, wherein they denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs. It is further stated that the plaintiffs have filed the suit only for bare injunction and in the said suit, such an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to value the suit property with the help of a Charted Engineer, would be outside the scope of the suit and such an application cannot be entertained. The defendant has carried out evictions only in accordance with law. 5.The trial court accepted the plea of the petitioner and passed an order for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, on the ground that it would help the court in reducing oral evidence and it is also observed that by appointment of such an Advocate Commissioner, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant. The said order is being questioned in this civil revision petition. 6.The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. As per the averments in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, the plaintiffs have admitted that when the defendant made arrangements to demolish the buildings in the suit property, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he had inspected the suit property on 5.7.2000 and also filed a report on 15.7.2000. It is further stated that on 19.7.2000, the defendant started to measure the suit property and fixed the boundaries and commenced demolition of the buildings in the suit property. It is further stated that on 19.7.2000, the defendant started to measure the suit property and fixed the boundaries and commenced demolition of the buildings in the suit property. It is further stated that the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property , once again on 22.7.2000 and also filed a report on 24.7.2000, showing the buildings demolished and left undemolished in the suit property. The plaintiffs have filed one more application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to value the suit property with the help of a Chartered Engineer and the same was allowed by the trial court. 7.Now the question is, whether the trial court has committed any error in passing the order, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to value the suit property, with the help of a Chartered Engineer, in a suit for permanent injunction? 8.The learned advocate for the revision petitioner submitted that the scope of the suit is limited in the sense that it is the contention of the plaintiffs that they are all residing in the suit property and their possession is legal and the defendant has no right to evict the plaintiffs from the suit property. The only question that would arise for consideration of the court in the said suit, is whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit property and whether the defendant carried out the eviction proceedings legally. Nothing more arises for consideration in the suit. But, however, as the plaintiffs contended that the defendants demolished certain buildings, in the suit property, the court below was benevolent in appointing an Advocate Commissioner, who has inspected the suit property on 5.72000 and also filed a report. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that again the defendant demolished the buildings in the suit property on 19.7.2000 and the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property on 22.7.2000 and filed a report on 24.7.2000, showing the buildings demolished and also left undemolished, including the length, breadth and height of the buildings. It appears that the Advocate Commissioner has noted down the conditions of the buildings in the suit property. As such, further application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to value the buildings demolished and left undemolished would definitely fall outside the purview and scope of the suit, which is only for permanent injunction. It appears that the Advocate Commissioner has noted down the conditions of the buildings in the suit property. As such, further application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to value the buildings demolished and left undemolished would definitely fall outside the purview and scope of the suit, which is only for permanent injunction. If really the plaintiffs have incurred any loss or damage, it is always open to them to take appropriate steps before appropriate forum, claiming damages and they cannot claim damages in the suit for permanent injunction. 9.The learned advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the order passed by the court below, appointing the Advocate Commissioner to value the buildings, in the suit property with the help of a Chartered Engineer is perfectly valid and the court below has not committed any error. 10.The respondents also relied upon certain decisions to support their case. 11.In Rajam Chettiar Vs. Mohanlal (1988-TLNJ-200), this court considered the scope of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. In the said case, the suit filed is for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction in respect of the suit property. In the said suit also, Commissioners were appointed twice and the 3rd application was filed, stating that even after passing of the order of interim injunction, the defendant demolished a portion of the buildings in the suit property and putting up new construction and in the said circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the said application. In the circumstances, the court stated that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was necessary. 12.B.M.Habibullah, etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (AIR-1994-Madras-222), is a case falling under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act (3 of 1905) and the removal of encroachment was questioned on the ground that it was a forcible eviction by the authorities concerned. They filed writ petitions, challenging the act of the authorities and also prayed for compensation and the court rightly rejected the prayer for compensation. 13.In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Constructions Company (P) Ltd. (AIR-1996-SC-2005), the Supreme Court considered the nature and ambit of its power under Art.142 of the Constitution of India. It is observed that it was advisable to leave the power under Art.142 undefined and uncatalogued, so that it remains elastic enough to be moulded to suit the situation. 14.C.L.Ramaiah Thevar Vs. P.C.Balarama Raja (2000-IV-CTC-201), and Roman Catholic Church, Maniaran Kunnu at Amsi, rep. It is observed that it was advisable to leave the power under Art.142 undefined and uncatalogued, so that it remains elastic enough to be moulded to suit the situation. 14.C.L.Ramaiah Thevar Vs. P.C.Balarama Raja (2000-IV-CTC-201), and Roman Catholic Church, Maniaran Kunnu at Amsi, rep. by its Parish Priest Rev. Father Paul Richard Joseph Vs. Mariarulappan and two others (2001-2-CTC-742), are the cases where, powers of this court under Section 115 (i) were canvassed and held that when the order passed does not decide the right or obligation of the parties, this court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 115 to revise the said order. 15.None of the cases cited and relied upon by the respondents are of any help to support the case of the respondents. 16.As it has already been observed by me supra that the respondents/plaintiffs had the benefit of appointment of Advocate Commissioner twice and as a matter of fact, it is stated in the 2nd report, that the Advocate Commissioner has noted down the buildings demolished and left undemolished and also the length, breadth and height of the buildings in the suit property and they are more than sufficient with regard to the nature of relief sought for in the suit. It is not open to the plaintiffs to fish out evidence for some other proceedings and for some other forum and that cannot and should not be the purpose of appointing an Advocate Commissioner. As such I am of the considered view that the trial court has committed an error in passing an order, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property with the help of a Chartered Engineer to value the buildings, etc. in the suit property and therefore, the said order is vitiated and liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 17.In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.