ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A. No.127/2019 in A.S. No.49 of 2019 dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Principal Sub-Judge at Virudhachalam. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 487 of 2005 which was filed for declaration and recovery of possession on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vridhachalam. The suit was allowed by Judgment dated 04.12.2017 and decreed as prayed for. Being aggrieved, the defendant/the petitioner herein has filed an appeal in A.S.No.49 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Vridhachalam. Pending the aforesaid case, the defendant has filed I.A. No.127 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, seeking for to appoint an advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of Surveyor and file his reports with plan accordingly, by scrapping and eschewing the previous report filed by the Commissioner in the Trial Court as the plaintiff/respondent herein is entitled for 75 feet on the western side and 68 feet on the Eastern side in the said property as she is having proper document to the above mentioned measurement. The same was dismissed by order dated 10.02.2020 after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties. Not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the defendant/petitioner herein has filed the present Civil Revision Petition seeking for to set aside the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue of the case would be solved only after measuring the suit property with the assistance of the Surveyor as per the title deeds FMB and other revenue records produced by the Revision petitioner. Since the earlier warrant of Commissioner has not been accompanied with the surveyor, the petitioner herein has filed I.A. No.127 of 2019 in A.S. No.49 of 2019 to measure the property with the help of Surveyor to file his report with plan. The earlier report given by the Advocate Commissioner is not referring to the authenticated title deeds of both parties, FMB and other revenue records. The earlier report given by the Advocate Commissioner is not referring to the authenticated title deeds of both parties, FMB and other revenue records. Hence, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.127 of 2019 to appoint new Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property having verified authenticated records of title deeds of both parties, FMB and other related revenue records with the help of Surveyor to the satisfaction of both parties. Without considering the above aspect, the Appellate Court has dismissed the application. It has been further submitted that since the purpose of the Commissioner of appointment has not been served in the suit stage, the application ought to have been allowed granting one more opportunity to appoint the Advocate Commissioner for the interest of Justice. The appellate Court has not considered that the earlier warrant of Commissioner has not sought for the assistance of the Surveyor and measured himself having looked out of the documents produced by the plaintiff/respondent herein, hence, the appellate Court may be allowed the application by appointing the Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of the Surveyor. As the dispute in extent of the suit property, the Advocate Commissioner ought to have measured with the assistance of the Surveyor or otherwise both parties cannot be satisfied themselves and therefore, the defendant/petitioner herein is directed to file an application in I.A. No.127 of 2019 in A.S.No.49 of 2019 to appoint an advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of the Surveyor. Hence, this Court may be pleased to set aside the dismissal order of the appellate Court. 4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as perused the material available on record. 5. On a perusal of the record, it is seen that during the Trial in O.S.No.487 of 2005, on the side of the plaintiff/respondent herein, as many as 7 documents have been marked in Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and 5 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5. On the side of the defendant/petitioner herein, one document was marked in Ex.B1 and one witness was cross examined as D.W.1. Further Documents in Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 were marked on the side Advocate Commissioner. On the side of the defendant/petitioner herein, one document was marked in Ex.B1 and one witness was cross examined as D.W.1. Further Documents in Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 were marked on the side Advocate Commissioner. It is noted that the plaintiff/respondent herein has already filed the petition in I.A.No.1527 of 2007 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner with the help of Municipal Surveyor to inspect the trespassed area by the defendant/petitioner herein into the suit properties and to file a detailed report with Rough plan. On considering the arguments of both parties, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Court below therein. After inspecting the suit schedule properties, the Advocate commissioner has filed a detailed report and rough plan. At that point of time, the defendant/petitioner herein has not objected the said Commissioner in inspecting the said property and in filing the report and rough plan after closing of cross examination on both sides. After oral and documentary evidences were marked and cross examined on the side of the plaintiff/respondent herein, the defendant/petitioner herein has filed another petition in I.A. No.639 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vriddhachalam to re-issue the Commissioner Warrant. The same was dismissed on 09.08.2016. Even though it was dismissed by the Court below, the defendant/petitioner herein once again has filed I.A.No.127 of 2019 seeking for to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit schedule property along with Municipal Surveyor. The same was also dismissed by order dated 10.02.2020. While the matter in appointing new Advocate Commissioner, is res-judicata in this case, the defendant/petitioner herein has once again filed Application in I.A. No.127 of 2019 seeking for the same prayer which cannot be sustained by law or on facts. Hence the Court below has rightly dismissed the aforesaid application. 6. In the Ex.C1-the report of Advocate Commissioner in para No.4 reads as under: OTHER LANGUAGE In view of the aforesaid report, it makes clear that the defendant/petitioner herein has encroached the property of the plaintiff/respondent herein. Further, the Commissioner's rough plan made clear that in the encroached portion, the defendant/petitioner herein has constructed a septic tank and stair case. While being so, the defendant/petitioner herein has admitted the same in her cross examination which reads as under: OTHER LANGUAGE 7. Further, the Commissioner's rough plan made clear that in the encroached portion, the defendant/petitioner herein has constructed a septic tank and stair case. While being so, the defendant/petitioner herein has admitted the same in her cross examination which reads as under: OTHER LANGUAGE 7. In view of the aforesaid admissions made by the defendant/petitioner herein, it makes clear that the defendant/petitioner herein has accepted the encroachment in the plaintiff's/respondent property. 8. Under these circumstances, while the defendant/petitioner herein has not proved his right, title and interest over the suit property before the Trial Court by way of oral and documentary evidence, it is felt that the petitioner is filing such petitions is only to drag on the proceedings in the appellate Court. 9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed in I.A. No.127 of 2019 passed by the Court below and it is hereby confirmed. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed if any. No costs.