Judgment :- The defendants in the suit are the revision petitioners. The respondent in the revision has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.45,23,815.24 against the defendant/revision petitioners particularly, jointly and severally on the basis of advances of several amounts to the defendants/revision petitioners, who are running a tea factory manufacturing teas and were selling the manufactured tea through the respondents/plaintiffs firm at Coonoor. 2. The 1st defendant has filed a Written Statement. The defendants have also filed an application in I.A.No.288 of 2007 under Order 26 Rule 11 and 12 r/w Sec.151 of CPC for appointment of a Commissioner to examine and adjust the plaintiffs accounts from the inception on the transactions with the defendants, with the assistance of a qualified chartered Accountant and to submit their report on the various points mentioned therein. 3. The suit is of the year 2005, filed on the basis of Accounts and at the time when the suit was to be started for trial, the present petition came to be filed by the defendant for appointment of a Commissioner and the learned Trial Judge has dismissed the application on 10. 2007. As against the order, the defendants have filed the above revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Srinath Sridevan, for Caveator, who has strongly opposed the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. 5. A reading to the prayer in the application filed by the defendants for appointment of a Commissioner, reads as follows: "1. The rates of interest charged by the Plaintiff and if the same has been charged as simple interest or as compound interest? 2. The amounts of Principal, if any, shown by the Plaintiff: 3. Whether the payments made by and credited to the defendant have been adjusted by the plaintiff towards the Principal at any time, and if so, the details thereof; 4. If the interest amounts charged are taken at 9% per annum simple interest, and the excess interest is credited towards the Principal what will be the balance amount payable by the Plaintiff? 5. The details of the tea supplied by the Defendant and credited towards the defendants account by the plaintiff; 6. Any other direction which the Honble Court may be pleased to give to the Commissioner; It shows that the application is not maintainable on the face of it. 5. The details of the tea supplied by the Defendant and credited towards the defendants account by the plaintiff; 6. Any other direction which the Honble Court may be pleased to give to the Commissioner; It shows that the application is not maintainable on the face of it. In fact the defendants want the Commissioner not only to examine and adjust the plaintiffs accounts from inception but also the rates of interest charged by the plaintiff and the amounts of principal, if any, shown by the plaintiff. These are matters to be proved by the plaintiff during the course of trial. By virtue of appointment of the Commissioner the defendant cannot be expected to create evidence in his favour. 6. It is also further seen in the order of the learned trial Judge that this Court by Order dated 27. 2007 in CMA No.1657 of 2007 had fixed time to dispose of the suit and inspite of the same, the present petition has been filed at the time when the trial was about to be taken up. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the trial Judge. Therefore, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P is closed.