ORDER: The above civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 8.9.2004 made in I.A.No.138 of 2004 in A.S.No.29 of 1998 on the file of Subordinate Court, Udumalpet. 2. The suit was filed by the first respondent for rectification of the documents by impleading the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The first respondent herein has filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Udumalpet in A.S.No.29 of 1998. In I.A.No.138 of 2004, the first respondent had prayed for an appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features and the said petition was allowed by the appellate Court. Hence the above civil revision petition. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was absolutely no justification for the first respondent to come forward with an application for an appointment of Commissioner at the appellate stage. Even an earlier petition filed by the first respondent has been dismissed and that being so, there was no justification for filing one more petition, that too at the appellate stage. 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent admits that there was an earlier petition for appointment of a Commissioner, which according to him was dismissed only for default and that there was no disposal on merits. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 7. There is absolutely no justification in a suit of this nature, namely for rectification of documents, for the contested party to seek for an appointment of Commissioner at the appellate stage. The trial Court had gone into the issue in detail and has found against the first respondent. The appellate Court has to proceed further only on the basis of the materials available before it and the first respondent cannot be permitted at a later stage to ask for appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features. There is absolutely no justification for the appellate Court to have ordered the petition filed by the petitioner. 8. With the result, the revision petition is allowed. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1996, the appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.176 of 2005 is closed.