Judgment :- 1. Inveighing and challenging the order dated 07.12.2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode in I.A.No.96 of 2007 in A.S.No.17 of 2008 [transferred from the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal I.A.No.96 of 2007 in A.S.No.120 of 2002 and re-numbered], this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The revision petitioner herein filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: To pass a judgment and decree to declare the plaintiff's right of use over the suit "A,B,C,D" lane situated in S.No.123/2 of Thiruvalluvar Nagar. consequently interdicting the defendants and their men from their in any manner preventing the plaintiff and his family members from using the "A,B,C,D" lane situated in S.No.123/2 of Thiruvalluvar Nagar by means of permanent injunction and to award costs. (extracted as such) (ii) The matter was contested. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit; as against which, appeal was filed in A.S.No.120 of 2002, which was subsequently, transferred and renumbered as A.S.No.17 of 2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode. During the pendency of the appeal, so to say, at the time of argument, I.A.No.96 of 2007 came to be filed for getting a fresh commissioner appointed to visit the suit property; to measure the suit land with the assistance of a Surveyor and submit a plan drawn to scale. After hearing both sides, the appellate court dismissed the said application. (iii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been focussed on various grounds. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would put forth and set forth his argument, the nitty gritty, the gist and kernel of the same would run thus: No doubt, the commissioner appointed by the trial court submitted his report over which, the revision petitioner is having no grievance. However, there are some vagueness in it, which has to be got clarified and with that avowed object alone, during the arguments stage, for the purpose of enlightening the appellate court further on that point, the said application was filed to get a fresh commissioner appointed and the intention of the revision petitioner/appellant was not to get erased the earlier commissioner's report. But the appellate court, thought it otherwise and simply dismissed it. 5. But the appellate court, thought it otherwise and simply dismissed it. 5. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise and to make mincemeat of the argument advanced on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted his argument, the pith and marrow of the same would run thus: As a matter of course, a litigant cannot get a second commissioner appointed even while the first commissioner's report was very much on record. The appellate court, au fait with law and au courant with facts, correctly held that when the trial court commissioner's report was on record without that being erased, the question of the plaintiff getting a fresh commissioner appointed would be a well-neigh impossibility, warranting interference in revision. 6. A mere running of the eye over the order passed by the appellate court would connote and denote that at the time of hearing the arguments, such an application came to be filed and according to the appellate court, it was nothing but a sheer attempt to protract the proceedings. 7. Be that as it may, the law on the point is that the appellate court should have full facts before it. No doubt, here, the revision petitioner/appellant had no intention to get erased or set aside the first commissioner's report and sketch. However, his avowed objected was to see that the appellate court is enlightened further on this point. In such a case, I am of the view that when virtually the parties are not at logger heads it has to be understand in the proper perspective. Hence with that in mind, I would like to pass the following order: The appellate court shall proceed to hear the arguments on both sides and peruse the records and if the appellate court before rendering judgment finds that further particulars are required relating to the location as well as the measurements and other physical features of the suit property, it is always open to it to appoint a fresh commissioner to visit the suit property; measure the same with the assistance of the surveyor and submit its report or otherwise, the appellate court can straightaway pronounce the judgment on merits. The appellate court shall do well to see that the matter is disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The appellate court shall do well to see that the matter is disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.