Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed questioning the order dated 02.12.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgris at Uthagamandalam made in I.A.No.498 of 2010 in O.S.No.105 of 2010. 2. The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. One Ravikumar and S.Jayachandran representing the Wild Life and Nature and Environment Lovers of the General Public, have filed a suit for declaration, consequential permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants. The petitioner, by filing a Written Statement, has contested the matter. In the course of the proceedings, respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, claiming themselves as representatives of the general public, who are Wild Life, Nature and Environment Lovers of Nilgris District, filed a Petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying for appointment of a Commissioner to make a local inspection of the suit property described in the schedule with the help of a qualified surveyor and to submit his report with sketch on the following points: (i) The physical features of the buildings put up by the respondent/first defendant and the measurements of the same; (ii) Whether any further construction activities are going on and whether any Door number assessment number has been given for the existing constructor? (iii) The plinth area of the buildings and whether any hotel or restaurant is being run in the suit property; (iv) The distance of the building and compound from the Reserve Forest on all sides. 3. According to the plaintiffs, Kodanadu View Point is internationally famous as a tourist spot and it provides the common cause for protection of the public. It is their contention that if the first defendant/petitioner herein continues to run the Hotel and Restaurant, then Kodanadu View Point will lose its importance and the Tourists will suffer. Hence, they seek for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and report on the physical features and the status of the buildings. 4. However, the petitioner, who is the first defendant before the Trial Court, filed a counter stating that for invoking Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C., two conditions must be satisfied viz., parties must be numerous and they must have the same interest. 4. However, the petitioner, who is the first defendant before the Trial Court, filed a counter stating that for invoking Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C., two conditions must be satisfied viz., parties must be numerous and they must have the same interest. But, in the suit, the plaintiffs are not known to the general public in Kothagiri Taluk, in particular, within the limits of Kodanadu Panchayat and also they have settled in Nilgris only in the recent past, whereas, he is a habitant of that place and so, the plaintiffs representing themselves as Nature Lovers on behalf of the general public is false and they cannot seek for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner without looking into the fact that the Restaurant is functioning in Kodanadu View Point for the past several years. 5. The Trial Court, on consideration of the case and taking into account that there is no oral and documentary evidence, heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on 21.01.2011, after which the counsel for the respondents sought several adjournments on 31.01.2011, 08.02.2011, 28.02.2011, 07.03.2011, 25.03.2011, 07.04.2011, 25.04.2011, 10.06.2011, 24.06.2011, 13.07.2011, 29.08.2011, 19.09.2011, 21.10.2011, 02.11.2011, 10.11.2011 and 14.11.2011. On 14.11.2011, as there was no representation for the respondents, in spite of sufficient time granted by the Trial Court, the respondents' side arguments was suo motu closed and on consideration of the relief sought for by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that it is of the considered view that if a Commissioner is appointed to survey, he can visit the suit property with the assistance of a qualified Surveyor to ascertain the fact and the Commissioner's Report will be more helpful for determining the issues of the suit, and accordingly allowed the Application by appointing Mr.D.Jayaraman, Advocate as Commissioner to visit and measure the suit schedule property with the assistance of a Surveyor to note down the points measured in the application. The Trial Court fixed the remuneration of the Commissioner at Rs.7,000/-payable directly by the plaintiffs with a direction to submit the Commissioner's report and plan by 23.01.2012, as against which the petitioner is before this court. 6. Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned counsel for the petitioner has consistently pleaded before this court that the suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. According to him, environmental issues and local laws are not matters for concern for measuring the property with an Advocate Commissioner. 6. Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned counsel for the petitioner has consistently pleaded before this court that the suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. According to him, environmental issues and local laws are not matters for concern for measuring the property with an Advocate Commissioner. He would contend that the suit itself is not maintainable and that the Trial Court has committed an error in appointing an Advocate Commissioner. 7. On the other hand, Mr.C.A.Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the Restaurant in question at Kodanadu View Point is a place of international importance and it will cause serious prejudice to nature lovers and that the issues involved in the Suit for injunction cannot be decided without measuring the Restaurant and without proper plan. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Respondents 1 and 2 herein as Plaintiffs have filed a Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants. The Revision Petitioner is the first defendant in the Suit. After filing of a Written Statement, the petitioner made an application along with the Suit for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for measuring the property in question with the help of a qualified Surveyor. The said application has been taken on contest with proper pleadings and the learned counsel for the parties have contested the matter and thereafter, the Trial Court took a view that there is a need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and accordingly, allowed the Application by appointing Mr.D.Jayaraman, Advocate as Commissioner to visit and measure the suit property with the assistance of a qualified Surveyor to note down the points mentioned in the Application, with a remuneration of Rs.7000/- to be paid to the Commissioner directly and fixed the date of hearing for filing the Commissioner's Report and Plan as 23.01.2012. 10. It is seen that the Restaurant in question is located in Kodanadu View Point and the petitioner is running it. It is also claimed by the petitioner that there are other Restaurants being run under the control of the Government and if that is so, respondents 1 and 2, without any cause, have questioned the petitioner's running of the Restaurant. It is seen that the Restaurant in question is located in Kodanadu View Point and the petitioner is running it. It is also claimed by the petitioner that there are other Restaurants being run under the control of the Government and if that is so, respondents 1 and 2, without any cause, have questioned the petitioner's running of the Restaurant. Though this has been resisted by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 by saying that it is a business and unless it is measured, the issues in the suit cannot be adjudicated effectively, the view of the petitioner has been taken note of by the Trial Court and on consideration of the same, the Trial Judge allowed the Application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. 11. The question of locus standi of the petitioner and running of his Hotel and Restaurant is a matter for adjudication at the time of trial. Now, the issue in question is the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner and on entire consideration of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no warranting circumstance to interfere with the order of the Trial Judge and therefore, this Civil Revision Petition deserves no merit consideration. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a point of locus standi that there is no need for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a case of relief of declaration and permanent injunction. He also consistently pleaded that the petitioner may be permitted to raise all the issues at the time of trial by filing an Objection to the Commissioner's Report. 13. Taking note of the above submission, it is seen that right of objection is an opportunity available to the petitioner to put forth all the issues. When such an opportunity is available, there is no compelling circumstances to assail the order of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. In that event, it is always open to the petitioner to raise all the issues raised before this court in his Objection, on receipt of the Commissioner's Report. With this observation, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.