Judgment : 1. The present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants in O.S.No.44/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, for partition. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the court below dated 02.03.2013 in I.A.No.339 of 2010 whereby the Advocate Commissioner was directed to file final report with reference to the property identified by him. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that already the Taluk Surveyor found that there is a difference in identifying the suit property with regard to the survey number. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot be directed to file a final report which according to him, will complicate the proceedings. I am not able to appreciate his contention. 3. The Court has only directed the Advocate commissioner to file his final report. Needless to say that it is always open for the parties to file objection on such report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. Thus, the court will have to consider the correctness or otherwise of the report of the Advocate Commissioner based on the objections filed by the parties. When that being the procedure, the petitioners cannot have any grievance for filing a final report by the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, I find no merits in the civil revision petition. 4. The Advocate Commissioner is directed to file his final report. As and when any report is filed by the Advocate Commissioner, it is open to the petitioners as well as respondents to file their respective objections, if any, as against the said final report and the court below shall consider the said final report along with the objections raised by the respective parties and pass appropriate orders on the said final report. 5. With the above directions, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.