JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 10.01.2012 passed in E.A.No.94 of 2011 in E.P.No.23 of 2011 in O.S.No.56 of 2001 by the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A singularly singular situation erupted in this case in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff/decree holder to the effect that the E.P., filed for executing the decree for mandatory injunction was dismissed as not pressed at the instance of the plaintiff/decree holder. In fact, the revision petitioner herein/judgment debtor filed E.A., for getting an Advocate Commissioner appointed for locating the property concerned and that application was dismissed as against which this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the E.P., as not pressed, naturally this E.A., would have no legs to stand and consequently, this Civil Revision Petition would become infructuous. Wherefore, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, I could countenance the apprehension of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that in the event of once again the plaintiff/decree holder filing the E.P., for the same purpose, liberty has to be given to file E.A., for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh E.A., for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in the event of the decree holder filing E.P., for executing the decree. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.