Judgment 1. This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed appointing an Advocate Commissioner, in I.A.No.50 of 2014 in A.S.No.23 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. 2. The application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs to inspect the suit property, to find out the actual fact whether the petition schedule property is cultivable agricultural land or house sites and to note down its physical features and to file report. The petition was allowed by the Court below by appointing the Advocate Commissioner a) to note down only the physical features of the suit property and b) to take photographs. Therefore, the order cannot be faulted with in terms of merits. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/second defendant is that the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner with an intention to protract the proceedings of the appeal and hence, the order is sought to be set aside. 4. In order to avoid further delay, it is suggested that this Court may give appropriate direction to the Court below for speedy disposal of the appeal itself. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the representation made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court directs the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamalle to dispose of the appeal filed in A.S.No.23 of 2011 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above said direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.