JUDGMENT 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 21.08.2012 passed in I.A.No.183 of 2012 in O.S.No.312 of 2006, by the learned District Munsif, Virudhunagar. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumb-nail sketch of the germane facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the tenant from the suit property. The revision petitioner/defendant would contend that he happens to be the tenant of the vacant site belonging to the plaintiff and in that a superstructure was raised by him and running his business and that the defendant filed the application in I.A.No.183 of 2012 seeking the following relief: “TAMIL” However, that was resisted by the plaintiff. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed that application, as against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been focussed. 4. The revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of the revision would pyramid his arguments thus: The lower Court failed to appreciate the fact that if the Advocate Commissioner is appointed, he would be able to precisely furnish the extent of the superstructure which would help the lower Court to arrive at a just conclusion. On the other hand, the lower Court found out that such appointment of Advocate Commissioner would virtually be a surplus age. Hence, he prays for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in this regard. 5. Whereas the learned Counsel for the plaintiff would put forth his objections which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: The lower Court taking into account the pros and cons of the matter and also the gamut and scope of the suit, dismissed the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. In fact, it is an admitted fact by the plaintiff that there is a superstructure put up by the tenant. In such a case, there is no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the superstructure. The learned Counsel for the respondent would also orally state that the plaintiff wants the vacant land and not the superstructure. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court? The Point: 7. Admitted facts need not be proved, is the settled proposition of law. The learned Counsel for the respondent would also orally state that the plaintiff wants the vacant land and not the superstructure. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court? The Point: 7. Admitted facts need not be proved, is the settled proposition of law. Here, candidly and categorically, fulling no further it is admitted by the defendant that there is a superstructure put up by him on the land concerned. In such a case, the question of Advocate Commissioner being appointed, is not necessary. In fact, the plaintiff only wants to recover the possession of land leased out by him to the defendant and not the superstructure. Therefore, the question of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is a well-neigh impossibility. Accordingly, the lower Court correctly dismissed the application, warranting no interference in this Civil Revision Petition. The point is answered accordingly. 8. On balance, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.