ORDER : Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 31.08.2021, made in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.53 of 2018, on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivagangai. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.158 of 2013 is the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner is challenging the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 31.08.2021, passed by the Sub-Court, Sivagangai, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.53 of 2018. 2. By the impugned order, the Sub-Court, Sivagangai, has rejected I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.53 of 2018 filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under :- 3. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.158 of 2013 for declaration before the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, for declaration, recovery of possession of the suit property and for mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment allegedly made by the petitioner in the suit property. 4. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff had also filed I.A.No.1219 of 2013 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. The application was allowed. The Advocate Commissioner appointed is said to have inspected the suit property on 15.02.2014 and had also given a report, dated 11.04.2014, before the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai. 5. The said suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai, vide judgment and decree, dated 04.04.2018, shifting the burden of proof on the petitioner by stating that he has not discharged the burden of proof. Relevant portion of the Judgment in O.S.No.158 of 2013 of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, dated 04.04.2018, reads as under:- 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, the petitioner filed A.S.No.53 of 2018 before the Sub-Court, Sivagangai wherin the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C., for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to give a report stating that the property was not properly measured by the Advocate Commissioner earlier appointed in I.A. No. 1219 of 2013 in O.S.No.158 of 2013 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sivagangai,. The Sub-Court, Sivagangai, has rejected I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.53 of 2018 filed by the petitioner. 7. The Sub-Court, Sivagangai, has rejected I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.53 of 2018 filed by the petitioner. 7. The Sub-Court, Sivagangai, while dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2020 has proceeded to uphold the views of the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai, based on the Advocate Commissioner's report in I.A.No.1219 of 2013. Relevant portion of the impugned order has already been reproduced in the beginning of this order. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub-Court, Sivagangai, has committed a grave error in rejecting the application filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner as the property was not properly measured by the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the directions given by the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, in O.S.No.158 of 2013 while allowing I.A.No.1219 of 2013. 9. It is further submitted that the report of the Advocate Commissioner, which formed the basis of the judgment and decree, dated 04.04.2018 of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, in O.S.No.158 of 2013, was liable to be interfered with by the Sub-Court, Sivagangai, in A.S.No.53 of 2018, as report of the Advocate Commissioner was full of discrepancy and was of no use for the Sub-Court, Sivagangai, to decide as to whether the judgment and decree, dated 04.04.2018 of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, was to be either affirmed or reversed. 10. It is submitted that the Advocate Commissioner should have measured the property from the northern side of the suit property, which ought to have been undertaken by the Advocate Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and the Rules made thereunder. 11. The present Civil Revision Petition is opposed by the respondent respondent/plaintiff on the ground that the report given by the Advocate Commissioner was clear and based on which, decree came to be passed by the Trial Court on 04.04.2018. He would further submit that there is no scope for appointing the fresh Advocate Commissioner to give a fresh report at the appellate stage, as no new material is available for the Court to interfere and thus, the application has been rightly rejected. 12. I have perused the impugned order, judgment and decree, dated 04.04.2018, passed by the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, in O.S.No.158 of 2013. The relevant portion of the judgment, which has already been extracted above. I have also perused the report given by the Advocate Commissioner, dated 11.04.2014. 13. 12. I have perused the impugned order, judgment and decree, dated 04.04.2018, passed by the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, in O.S.No.158 of 2013. The relevant portion of the judgment, which has already been extracted above. I have also perused the report given by the Advocate Commissioner, dated 11.04.2014. 13. Originally, the suit was filed showing the suit schedule property marked as ABCD in 0.011.0 sq.mt. in the plaint. Subsequently, the suit schedule property in the plaint was amended by the respondent/plaintiff based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by showing a lesser area marked which was identified as HIBC in the report of the Advocate Commissioner . The schedule to the property in the plaint before and after amendment reads as under:- 14. Thus, there is no clear identification in the plaint of the suit schedule property. The dispute pertains to the land, which was apparently encroached by the petitioner/defendant. The moot point that was to be decided by the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai, in O.S. No. 158 of 2013 was whether the suit schedule property fell within the bounds of the land in S.Nos. 228/15 and 228/16 of the respondent/plaintiff or within the bounds of the land in S.No.228/17 of the petitioner/defendant. Both the parties have not given the Extent of the Property of the land in S.Nos. 228/15 and 228/16 and land in S.No.228/17. 15. The Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed was required to give a report after the inspection of the suit schedule property. The Advocate Commissioner was required to merely identify the location of the disputed suit schedule property for the court to conclude as to whether the suit schedule property fell within the bounds of the land in S.Nos.228/15 and 228/16 of the respondent/plaintiff or whether the disputed property fell within the bounds of the land in S.No. 228/17 of the petitioner/defendant. 16. The report that was given by the Advocate Commissioner, formed the basis of the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, in O.S.No. 158 of 2013 was not clear. Therefore the suit was decreed based on an ambiguous report of the Advocate Commissioner. The Appellate Court should have therefore appointed an Advocate Commissioner to give a clear report after ascertaining the extent of the land and location of the disputed property. Therefore the suit was decreed based on an ambiguous report of the Advocate Commissioner. The Appellate Court should have therefore appointed an Advocate Commissioner to give a clear report after ascertaining the extent of the land and location of the disputed property. The Court is therefore inclined to interfere with the impugned order as the report of the Advocate Commissioner, based on which, the suit was decreed, prima facie appears to have not met with the requirements for the Court to resolve the dispute. 17. The impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in A.S.No.53 of 2018 by the Sub-Court, Sivagangai, is therefore set aside and the present Civil Revision Petition stands allowed, by directing the learned Sub-Judge, Sivagangai, to issue warrant to an Advocate Commissioner to cause inspection of the property and give a report with the help of the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer and such other revenue officials in accordance with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.