ORDER : Impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 29.11.2016, passed in I.A.No.400 of 2006 in O.S.No.167 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur, the plaintiffs have preferred this civil revision petition. 2. The plaintiffs laid the said application seeking for re-issuance of the Advocate Commissioner to find out the demarcation lines properly in Survey Nos.596 and 244/4A and to fix the western boundary of Survey No. 244/4A with the help of Survey Team of the State Highways under the supervision of the Local Tiruchendur Officer, namely, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department (Construction and Maintenance), Tiruchendur and the District Surveyor. It is found that the said application had come to be preferred by the plaintiffs when the suit was at a part-heard stage. The said suit has been laid for declaration and mandatory injunction and also other necessary reliefs. 3. The defendant had resisted the application preferred by the plaintiffs contending that already the Advocate Commissioners had inspected the suit property twice and filed their report with plan and in such view of the matter, the present application is nothing but an attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to drag on the proceedings endlessly and hence, the application is liable to be rejected. 4. The Court below in the impugned order has noted that already the suit property had been inspected by the first Advocate Commissioner and he has submitted a report along with plan. For the second time, another Commission has been appointed to inspect the suit property and has also submitted his report with plan. However, for the said report, the parties have filed objection. Thereafter, the trial has been commenced and when the matter is at a part-heard stage, the present application has been laid. 5. The application for re-issuance of Commission is sought for only to fix the western boundary. According to the plaintiffs, the earlier Commissioner has not performed his task in a proper manner. However, as rightly found by the Court below as regards the report of the earlier Commissioner, the parties having put forth their objections, it is for them to proceed further with the matter and establish their respective contentions by adducing evidence available with them. 6. However, as rightly found by the Court below as regards the report of the earlier Commissioner, the parties having put forth their objections, it is for them to proceed further with the matter and establish their respective contentions by adducing evidence available with them. 6. On the other hand, the conduct of the plaintiffs in approaching the Court again and again seeking for re-issuance of the Commission to inspect the suit property with the help of the above said Survey Team cannot be countenanced. The conduct of the plaintiffs would only go to show that they are not interested in bringing the suit to its conclusion and want to drag on the proceedings endlessly. 7. The Lower Court, by the impugned order, has rightly noted about the conduct of the plaintiffs and also finding that the relief sought for by them does not merit acceptance in the eyes of law, dismissed the application. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below. 8. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.