ORDER : The revision petitioner/plaintiff has laid the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2013 for declaration and permanent injunction. As seen from the records, it is found that on the application filed by the revision petitioner seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit property and to note down its physical features etc., and accordingly, it is found that the Advocate Commissioner having filed his report, the said application in I.A.No.974 of 2013 came to be closed. It is found that thereafter, the suit had been listed for trial on 09.04.2015. At that stage of the matter, the revision petitioner had preferred an application in I.A.No.457 of 2015 to condone the delay in filing objections to the Commissioner's report. The above said application was allowed on 13.08.2015. Thereafter, it is seen that the revision petitioner has preferred an application in I.A.No.1016 of 2015 for scrapping the report of the Advocate Commissioner and for re-issuing the commission warrant again to another Advocate to inspect and measure the suit property. The said application was hotly contested by the respondents/defendants. The Lower Court, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the above mentioned application. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. 2. The only reason given by the revision petitioner/plaintiff for scrapping the report of the Advocate Commissioner and for re-issuing commission warrant again to another Advocate to inspect and measure the suit property is that the earlier Advocate Commissioner has acted in a biased manner and thereby had not properly measured the suit property by fixing points and further according to the revision petitioner, the Commissioner's Report and the Surveyor's Report are found to be contradictory and further the Commissioner's plan and the Surveyor's plan are also found to be inconsistent with each other and inasmuch as the Commissioner had not measured the suit property by taking note of the fixed points, according to the revision petitioner, the Commissioner had filed report with defects and in such circumstances, it is his contention that the report of the Advocate Commissioner has to be scrapped and the commission warrant has to be re-issued to another Advocate for completing the task. 3. 3. The respondents/defendants have pleaded that the Commissioner has inspected and measured the suit property with the help of a qualified surveyor and also in the presence of both parties and accordingly, it is stated that the Commissioner had with the help of the Surveyor had fixed the relevant points before measuring the suit property and accordingly, measured the suit property and filed his report with plan and therefore, according to the respondents/defendants, the contention of the revision petitioner that the Advocate Commissioner had acted in a biased manner while measuring the suit property and filed a defective report cannot be accepted and further according to the respondents/defendants, the present application has been preferred by the revision petitioner/plaintiff only to delay the trial proceedings and hence, the said application is liable to be dismissed. 4. As seen from the above, the Lower Court did not find acceptance to the contentions of the revision petitioner's case and accordingly, rejected the application filed by him for scrapping the Commissioner's Report and re- issuance of the commission warrant again to another Advocate. 5. From the pleadings set out by the parties, it is noted that at the instance of the revision petitioner, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed. It is also found that the Advocate Commissioner had inspected and measured the suit property with the help of the Surveyor. Accordingly, it is noted that the Advocate Commissioner had clearly mentioned in his report that he had measured the suit property with the assistance of the Surveyor and as fixed by the Surveyor, he has measured the property by fixing particular points so as to identify the suit property and accordingly, after completing the task, it is found that he has filed his report. Therefore, as found from the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the said report has been prepared only with the assistance of the Surveyor and therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that the Advocate Commissioner had acted in a biased manner while measuring the suit property as such cannot be straightaway accepted. 6. Therefore, as found from the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the said report has been prepared only with the assistance of the Surveyor and therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that the Advocate Commissioner had acted in a biased manner while measuring the suit property as such cannot be straightaway accepted. 6. It is also found from the impugned order that the Court below had also noted from the report of the Advocate Commissioner that he has measured the suit property with the help of the Surveyor and at the instance of the Surveyor, the Commissioner had fixed relevant points before measuring the suit property and accordingly, identified the suit property and filed a report along with Surveyor's plan. Therefore, the Lower Court found that the Advocate Commissioner's report along with his plan in conjunction with the Surveyor's plan taken in toto would be sufficient to identify the suit property and therefore, the Lower Court has held that there is no need for the scrapping of the report of the Advocate Commissioner and for re-issuance of the commission warrant again to another Advocate. 7. At the first instance, it has not been made out by the revision petitioner that the Advocate Commissioner has acted in a biased manner while measuring the suit property. As noted above, it is found that the Advocate Commissioner had inspected the suit property in the presence of both parties and with the assistance of the Surveyor and therefore, sans any proof, it cannot be held that the Advocate Commissioner had acted in a biased manner while measuring the suit property. 8. As rightly found by the Lower Court, the Advocate Commissioner's report along with his plan read with the Surveyor's plan would go to show that the suit property had been properly identified by fixing the points as determined by the Surveyor and accordingly, it is found that both the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Surveyor had identified the suit property and accordingly, after completing their task had filed their report and plan. In such view of the matter, the contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff the Advocate Commissioner has not properly measured the suit property by fixing the points etc., as such cannot be accepted in any manner. 9. In such view of the matter, the contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff the Advocate Commissioner has not properly measured the suit property by fixing the points etc., as such cannot be accepted in any manner. 9. That apart, as pointed above, the Commission Application in I.A.No.974 of 2013 was closed on 22.01.2015 after filing of the report by the Advocate Commissioner. It is, therefore, found that at the first instance, the revision petitioner has not preferred any objections to the Commissioner's report. After keeping mum for nearly three months, it is found that when the matter had been posted in the list for trial, the revision petitioner had come forward with an application to condone the delay in filing the objections to the Commissioner's report. No doubt, the above said application was entertained by the Court below. Thereafter, it is found that the revision petitioner had come forward with the present application to scrap the Commissioner's report and for re-issuance of the Commissioner's warrant. 10. However, in view of the above discussions, when it is found and also determined by the Lower Court that the Commissioner's report + plan read in conjunction with the Surveyor's plan are found to be correct and from the same, the suit property could be easily identified, the contention of the revision petitioner that the Commissioner had not properly measured the suit property by fixing relevant points as such cannot be accepted. Insofar as this case is concerned, as rightly found by the Lower Court, the Commissioner's report if read in conjunction with the Surveyor's plan would clearly point out that the suit property had been identified in proper manner and therefore, the contention that there are contradictions between the Commissioner's Report and Surveyor's Plan as putforth by the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 11. Once it is found that the Advocate Commissioner's report is correct, as rightly determined by the Lower Court, if at all, the revision petitioner has any grievance in respect of the report of the Advocate Commissioner or in respect of the Surveyor's plan etc., nothing prevented the revision petitioner from summoning them as witnesses and eliciting answers in support of his case during the course of evidence. Therefore, merely on the bare plea that the Advocate Commissioner had acted in a biased manner and not properly measured the suit property cannot be the basis for scrapping his report and for re-issuance of the commission warrant again to another Advocate. 12. However, in support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2016 (6) CTC 66 (Semitta Kounder & another vs. Murugesan). However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the above said decision, it has been held that the report of the Commissioner is defective and accordingly, it was held that there was a need to re-issue the commissioner warrant. However, in sofar as our case is concerned, when it is found that the Commissioner's report is found to be not defective as such read in conjunction with the Surveyor's report and when it is found that the Advocate Commissioner measured and identified the suit property by fixing points with the assistance of the Surveyor, the contention of the revision petitioner that the Commissioner's report should be scrapped as such cannot be accepted sans any proof as regards this case. Therefore, as rightly putforth by the respondent's counsel, the decision relied on by the revision petitioner's counsel would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. The facts as detailed above would only go to show that the revision petitioner/plaintiff having laid the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 2013, cannot be allowed to drag on the proceedings endlessly one way or other by filing application after application and when it is found that as determined by the Lower Court that the present application seeking for scrapping of the Commissioner's report and for re- issuance of the Commissioner's warrant has been preferred without any basis only to delay the proceedings, it is found that the Lower Court has rightly rejected the application preferred by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. 14. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Court below does not call for any interference from this Court. 15. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.