Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, made in I.A.No.13609 of 2001 in O.S.No.5485 of 1999, dated 21-09-2001.) This Revision is directed against the order of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, made in I.A.No.13609 of 2001 in O.S.No.5485 of 1999, dated 21-09-2001, dismissing the Application filed under Or.26 R.9 C.P.C., declining to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The Defendant is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The Plaintiff is Rohini Gardens Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has constructed a residential Apartment, numbered as A to Q and named as Rohini Gardens at Raja Annamalaipuram. Each block consists of 8 MIG Flats, two Flats in the ground floor and six Flats above. The Plaintiff-Association was formed on 14-07-1983. In the ground floor, Flat Bearing No. B-1 was allotted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to one Subbammal. After the demise of Subbammal, the Defendant, who claims to be related to the said Subbammal is now in occupation of the Flat No.B-1. In the third week of July 1999, without any Authority, violating the conditions of allotment, the Defendant has made structural and other alterations in the said Flat, thereby causing obstruction and inconvenience to other Flat owners. The Plaintiff's Office bearers met the Defendant and asked her to desist from making the structural alterations, but the Defendant did not pay heed to their request. In the letter dated 28-7-1999 the Defendant has clearly admitted the alterations put up by her and she has also admitted that the alterations would weaken the structure and offered to erect beams to strengthen the foundation for the safety of the upper Flats of the Block. Alleging that the disputed construction by the Defendant affects the safety of the owners of the remaining Flats, the Plaintiff-Association has filed the Suit for Mandatory Injunction, directing the Defendant to restore Flat No.B-1 to its original position by restoring the Kitchen Wall, by restoring the entrance to its original place and by removing the extension of the balcony of the said Flat and also for Permanent Injunction. 3. Denying the allegations in the Plaint, the Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that the Suit has been filed to ventilate the personal grievance of some of the Members of the Association against the Defendant. 3. Denying the allegations in the Plaint, the Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that the Suit has been filed to ventilate the personal grievance of some of the Members of the Association against the Defendant. The Plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action to file the Suit. The Defendant has not removed any portion of the main support wall as falsely alleged. The Flat No.B-1 has devolved upon the Defendant through Subbammal and she has got every right to enjoy her Flat. The Defendant has not made any structural alterations as alleged by the Plaintiff-Association. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board wrote a letter, for which, the Defendant has sent a reply, over which the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was satisfied and they have not taken any action against the Defendant. Several other Flat owners in Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4 have done structural alterations, which have not been questioned by the Plaintiff-Association and hence, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 4. Already an Advocate-Commissioner has visited the spot and he has filed his Report noting down the physical features of the suit property. I.A.No. 13609 of 2001 was filed by the Defendant seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. According to the Defendant, in Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4, several changes have been made altering the original position (widening or change of doors/windows, was done in other Flats). It is alleged that, while P.W.1 was cross-examined, he has denied the alterations done by various Flat owners. Hence, the Advocate Commissioner is to be appointed to note down the structural alterations made in the other Flats, namely, Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4, Rohini Gardens at Raja Annamalaipuram. 5. The Application was resisted by the Plaintiff contending that the alleged alterations in the Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4, are irrelevant factor to decide the Suit on merits. The Application to note down the physical features in the other Flats, which are not the subject matter of the Suit, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of both the parties, the learned VI Assistant Judge has dismissed the Application finding that the physical features in Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4, are irrelevant to determine the Suit. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of both the parties, the learned VI Assistant Judge has dismissed the Application finding that the physical features in Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4, are irrelevant to determine the Suit. It was held that the main issue involved is, Whether the Mandatory Injunction could be granted or not and even if other Flat owners have done any such alterations as alleged by the Defendant, that is not a subject matter in the Suit. The trial Court was of the view that without the permission of the Third Parties/other Flat Owners, the Court cannot interfere with their possession under the pretext of noting down the physical features of their houses, since, they are not parties to the Suit. 7. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has preferred this Revision. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the Court below has erred in holding that the physical features in the Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4, are irrelevant to decide the Suit. It is further submitted that when P.W.1 has denied the alterations done by other Flat owners and that when P.W.1 has no objection for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, the Court below erred in dismissing the Application for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to visit the Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4, Rohini Gardens at Raja Annamalaipuram. 8. The Respondent has been served, but he has not entered appearance. The contentious points urged by the Respondent/Plaintiff-Association in the lower Court has been taken into consideration for disposal of this Revision Petition. 9. The short points that arise for consideration in this Revision Petition are:- i.Whether the Plaintiff could seek for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features/alterations if any in Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4? and ii.Whether the impugned order declining the appointment of the Advocate-Commissioner suffers from any serious infirmity warranting interference? 10. By a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that earlier the Commissioner was already appointed to note down the physical features of the suit property, who has accordingly filed the Report. The lower Court was of the view that the earlier Commissioner's Report and Plan would itself be sufficient to decide the case. 10. By a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that earlier the Commissioner was already appointed to note down the physical features of the suit property, who has accordingly filed the Report. The lower Court was of the view that the earlier Commissioner's Report and Plan would itself be sufficient to decide the case. No substantial point has been advanced necessitating the appointment of another Advocate Commissioner. 11. The Suit for Mandatory Injunction relates to the suit property in Flat No. B-1, Rohini Gardens at Raja Annamalaipuram. While, the Commissioner is sought to be appointed to verify and to note down the physical features, additions, changes, if any done by the respective Flat owners in Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4, Rohini Gardens at Raja Annamalaipuram, the petition mentioned properties are not the subject matter of the dispute. The physical features in the above said Flats and alterations if any are not relevant to determine the Suit. Even if there had been any such structural changes the same is to be proved only by adducing oral evidence and not by collecting evidence by taking the Advocate-Commissioner. 12. As pointed out by the trial Court the Flat owners of Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4 are not the parties to the Suit. Under the guise of appointing the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the above said Flats, the Court would only be intruding into the privacy of those Third Parties/Flat Owners. It would be impermissible to appoint the Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the above said Flats and to note down the alterations, if any. It is the contention of the Revision Petitioner that the changes were made by her in Flat No.B-1 obtaining permission from the Plaintiff-Association. If there is any such permission, the Defendant could very well produce the same to substantiate her contention. Even if there are any alterations or structural changes made, it is for the Defendant to prove by independent evidence and not seeking the assistance of Court to gather the evidence to bolster her case. 13. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Defendant has effected only minor alterations, which does not in any way change the material structure of the Flat. 13. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Defendant has effected only minor alterations, which does not in any way change the material structure of the Flat. It is the further contention that similar such alterations have been made in other Flats, which is necessary to be noted by appointing the Advocate Commissioner. 14. Under Or.26 R.9 C.P.C. the Commissioner could be appointed "for elucidating any matter in dispute". In this case the points in dispute are, Whether the changes/alterations done by the Defendant in Flat No.B-1 affects the other Flat owners ? and Whether it endangers the safety of other Flat owners ? The point, Whether other Flat owners have made changes in their Flats, is in no way relevant for deciding the Suit. 15. As pointed out by the trial Court, any alterations made by the other Flat owners are irrelevant for the subject matter of the dispute. Earlier, the Advocate Commissioner has visited the Flat No.B-1 and he has filed his Report noting the changes and the alterations done by the Defendant. It is stated that, even when the Commissioner has earlier visited the Flat No.B-1, the Defendant has made the statement to the Commissioner that the other Flat owners have also carried out alterations in their Flats. The statement of the Defendant to the Commissioner is incorporated in the Report of the Advocate Commissioner, which reads, "..The Defendant also added to their statement that other residents also carried alterations in their flats and the modifications carried by her in the suit premises is in no way will weaken the building." If the Defendant thought that the alterations made in the other Flats is so much essential, she could have very well filed the objection to the Report of the Advocate Commissioner. But that was not to be so. The earlier Report of the Advocate Commissioner was filed into the Court in November 1999 itself. Even then, the Defendant had not taken any steps requesting the Court for revisit of the Commissioner and to file a supplementary Report. The stage in which the Application for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner was filed is relevant to be noted. When the trial was in progress and the evidence of P.W.1 was in the box and after his cross-examination, the Application in I.A.No. 13609 of 2001 has been filed seeking to appoint the Advocate Commissioner. The stage in which the Application for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner was filed is relevant to be noted. When the trial was in progress and the evidence of P.W.1 was in the box and after his cross-examination, the Application in I.A.No. 13609 of 2001 has been filed seeking to appoint the Advocate Commissioner. The Application for reappointment of the Advocate Commissioner has been belatedly filed. 16. Taking note of the stage in which the Application was filed and that the alterations if any done in the other Flat Nos. A-4, D-2, Q-1, O-2, I-3 and I-4, are irrelevant, the learned VI Assistant Judge, has rightly declined to appoint the Advocate Commissioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, made in I.A.No.13609 of 2001 in O.S.No.5485 of 1999, dated 21-09-2001, is confirmed and this Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No. 16389 of 2001, is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. The learned VI Assistant Judge is directed to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No. 5485 of 1999 expeditiously, in accordance with law.