Judgment 1. The Petitioner/Defendant has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 08.12.2010 in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tiruppattur. 2. The Learned District Munsif, Tiruppattur, while passing the impugned order in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 on 08.12.2010, at paragraph-6 has categorically mentioned that "as against the Respondent, the Petitioner has already obtained a decree in O.S.No.39 of 1979 and in view of the disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, based on the Sale Deed dated 14.07.1950 and the Will dated 31.01.1996 pertaining to the measurements of the property and while noting that the Petitioner in O.S.No.39 of 1979 has mentioned the measurements in the petition in an increasing fashion and also in respect of the measurements there has arisen a dispute between the two parties, accordingly, has appointed an Advocate Commissioner" and resultantly allowed the petition. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/ Defendant assailing the correctness of the order dated 08.12.2010 in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court, submits that the trial Court should have seen that the present suit in O.S.No.130 of 2008 filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is nothing but to abuse the process of the Court even after the decree dated 26.03.1999 in O.S.No.39 of 1979. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant urges before this Court that in the earlier suit in O.S.No.39 of 1979, the relief sought for by the Respondent/Plaintiff against the Petitioner/Defendant is the same, that too in respect of the land as described in their plaint viz., East-West on the Northern side 50 feet, Southern side 48 feet and North-South 127 feet. However, the decree passed in the said suit is not for entire property, but only for a lesser/smaller extent. 4. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ Defendant submits that the trial Court should have seen that the decree dated 26.03.1999 in O.S.No.39 of 1979 is in consonance with the judgment wherein the right of the Respondent has been declared along with the others to a length of East-West Northern Side 50 feet, East-West Southern Side 47 feet, North-South Eastern side 130.5 feet and Western side 119 feet as per the Town Surveyor Plan, Ex.B10, which was directed to be annexed to the decree. 5. 5. The main contention of the Petitioner/Defendant is that the Respondent/Plaintiff is again making an endeavour to reopen the earlier judgment in O.S.No.39 of 1979, which provided for a lesser and different extent annexed as Ex.B10 with all the measurements found therein etc., and the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S.No.130 of 2008 by abusing the process of Court. 6. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant that the trial Court, without adverting to the decree in O.S.No.39 of 1979 and the description of the property made in O.S.No.39 of 1979, has incorrectly allowed the I.A.No.143 of 2009, much to the detriment of the Petitioner/Defendant. 7. Also, a stand has been taken on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant that the execution of the Will dated 31.01.1996 has no bearing, since the Plaintiff Pappammal @ Kokilammal died on 03.09.1997 and 2 to 8 plaintiffs are her legal heirs and the Respondent/Plaintiff has been arrayed as the 8th Plaintiff therein as seen from the decree dated 26.03.1999 in O.S.No.39 of 1979, which fact has not been taken note of by the trial Court in a proper and real perspective. 8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff that the Revision Petitioner/Defendant had filed a written statement in O.S.No.130 of 2008 disputing the measurements and extent and also the claims right as per various Sale Deeds in his favour. As such, the extent in the suit property is in dispute and the same has to be determined as per the Sale Deed dated 14.07.1950 and Will dated 31.01.1996. Therefore, the area covered under various Sale Deeds in favour of the Revision Petitioner/Defendant is to be measured by means of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and fixing the area concerned. 9. The Revision Petitioner/Defendant, before the trial Court in I.A.No.143 of 2009 at paragraph-4, has crystal clearly stated that already in O.S.No.39 of 1979, a decree has been passed in respect of the suit schedule property and therefore, no useful purpose will be served in ordering the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and also that, only to drag on the trail of the case, I.A.No.143 of 2009 has been filed by the Respondent/ Plaintiff. 10. 10. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant and the Respondent/Plaintiff are mainly banking on the decree dated 26.03.1999 in O.S.No.39 of 1979 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Tiruppattur, also that the Respondent/Plaintiff is claiming right in the suit property in O.S.No.130 of 2008 based on the Will dated 31.01.1996. 11. In view of the fact that both the parties rely upon the decree dated 26.03.1999 made in O.S.No.39 of 1979 and in view of the fact that the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed I.A.No.143 of 2009 praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to note down the physical features, etc., this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, on going through the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 dated 08.12.2010, is of the considered view that the trial Court, while allowing the I.A.No.143 of 2009 and appointing an Advocate Commissioner, Tmt. P. Thilaka, has not gone into the details of the decree or the judgment in O.S.No.39 of 1979 dated 26.03.1999 and without any qualitative and quantitative discussions, touching upon the decree in O.S.No.39 of 19790, has been perforced to allow the Interlocutory Application by passing an order of allowing the same (without an outline of necessary qualitative and quantitative process of reasoning). On this simple ground alone, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the said order is liable to be set aside for the simple reason that the trial Court has only mentioned that in between two parties a dispute has arisen in regard to the measurements of the suit property based on a decree dated 26.03.1999 in O.S.No.39 of 1979, which, in the considered opinion of this Court will not suffice. Further the same is not in conformity with the well established principles of law. As such, this Court is inclined to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and sets aside the order in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 passed by the trial Court in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 dated 08.12.2010 is set aside by this Court for the reasons mentioned in this Civil Revision Petition. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 dated 08.12.2010 is set aside by this Court for the reasons mentioned in this Civil Revision Petition. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13. The trial Court is directed to restore the I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 to its file and it is open to the parties to adduce any oral and documentary evidence in regard to the earlier proceedings viz., judgment and decree in O.S.No.39 of 1979 if they so desire/advised. Liberty is granted to the parties to examine other witnesses also in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. The trial Court is directed to provide adequate opportunities to the parties concerned for letting in oral and documentary evidence and to pass a considered/reasonable/speaking final order on merits in I.A.No.143 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 in accordance with law.