JUDGMENT V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the dismissal of an Application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and to note down the physical features. 2. Heard Mr. N. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. On 6.6.2008, when this Civil Revision Petition came up for admission, I directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to serve notice on the counsel who appeared for the respondent before the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly sent notice by registered post both to the respondent as well as to his counsel who appeared before the Trial Court. Along with the copy of the notice and the acknowledgment cards, the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an affidavit of service. Since the respondent did not chose to appear through counsel, his name is printed in the cause list. However, there is no representation for him. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition was taken up by me for disposal, on merits. 4. The petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 155 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi. The Suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant from interfering with the second plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. 5. Pending Suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 677 of 2007, praying for an interim order of injunction. In the said Application, the Trial Court passed an order dated 4.9.2007, rejecting the prayer for interim injunction, with liberty to the petitioners to seek the appointment of an advocate Commissioner. 6. Therefore, the petitioners filed an Application in I.A. No. 815 of 2007, for the appointment of an advocate Commisioner. That Application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the petitioners ought not to have requested for laying boundary stones in the property. Therefore the petitioners filed a third Application in I.A. No. 149 of 2008, for the appointment of an advocate Commissioner, rectifying the earlier mistake made, by omitting to seek a direction to lay boundary stones. But unfortunately, the Court below rejected this Application simply on the basis that the earlier Application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was rejected by the Court. 7. But unfortunately, the Court below rejected this Application simply on the basis that the earlier Application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was rejected by the Court. 7. From the sequence of events narrated above, it is clear that the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi, has not acted in accordance with law. All that he has done in the disposal of the three Applications, one for an interim injunction and two for appointment of an advocate Commissioner, is to harass the petitioners by throwing out the Petitions on flimsy reasons. The reason adduced by him for rejecting the second Application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, is actually no reason at all. I do not know if the learned District Munsif has acted with any balance in disposing all these Applications. 8. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the Court below in I.A. No. 149 of 2008, dated 10.4.2008 is set aside and the Application in I.A. No. 149 of 2008 is remitted back to the District Munsif, Aranthangi, for fresh orders appointing an Advocate Commissioner and fixing a time frame for the submission of a report. The Court below is directed to pass appropriate orders appointing an Advocate Commissioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. C.R.P. allowed.