Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1982 (MAD)

R. Sankarappan v. R. Jayachandran

2006-08-07

S.RAJESWARAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Revision Petition filed against the order dated 23.9.2004, made in I.A.No.12650/2002 in O.S.No.4904/1998, on the file of the XVI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 23.9.2004, made in I.A.No.12650/2002 in O.S.No.4904/1998, on the file of the XVI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Pending the suit he filed I.A.No.12650/2002 under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of advocate commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint 'C' schedule property and to find out whether the 2nd floor has been constructed, whether the respondent is in occupation of 1st floor, how many tenants are inducted in the basement, ground and the 2nd floor and the area occupied by them, the quantum of rents and the advances paid by them each for their respective occupation and the period in which they are in occupation and the advance and rent receipts issued to them and by whom the rents and advances were received. 4. The trial court dismissed the application by order dated 23.9.04 observing that advocate commissioner cannot be appointed to find out all the details asked for in the prayer portion of the petition and further held that these details would be gone into at the time of trial on the basis of evidence to be let in. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.04 the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 6. I do not find any illegality in the order of trial court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Advocate Commissioner can not be appointed to find out the facts and gather the evidence to prove the case of the parties. All the details mentioned in the prayer portion of the petition are to be gone into at the time of trial on the basis of evidence to be let in by the parties, as rightly observed by the trial court. 7. Hence I do not find any merits in the Civil Revision Petition and consequently the same is dismissed. All the details mentioned in the prayer portion of the petition are to be gone into at the time of trial on the basis of evidence to be let in by the parties, as rightly observed by the trial court. 7. Hence I do not find any merits in the Civil Revision Petition and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs.