Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the interim application, in I.A.No.457 of 2009, had been filed by the respondents, in O.S.No.72 of 2009, only for the purpose of nullifying the interim order of injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. It had also been submitted that the prayer in the interim application, in I.A.No.457 of 2009, is to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the petition mentioned property and to submit his report, as to whether the interim injunction granted, in I.A.No.373 of 2009, in O.S.No.72 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif, Udhagamandalam, covers the land belonging to the petitioner/respondents and as to whether the respondent/plaintiff is within the boundaries mentioned in the said interim application. 3. However, the order passed by the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam, in I.A.No.457 of 2009, in O.S.No.72 of 2009, dated 15.10.2009, makes it clear that it is just and necessary for appointing an advocate commissioner only to note down the physical features and not for any other purpose. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order, dated 15.10.2009, made in I.A.No.457 of 2009 in O.S.No.72 of 2009. Hence, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.