Under this revision, the order passed in I.A.No.203 of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal is under challenge. I.A.No.203 of 2008 was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that already two Commissioners were appointed to note down the physical features of the property and particularly the second advocate Commissioner along with the help of the Taluk surveyor to note down the physical features of the property and they are Exs C1 to C6(reports and plans) filed by the Commissioners but the revision petitioners have not chosen to file any objection to the above Exs C1 to C6. Further the learned first appellate Judge has also observed that there is no material placed before him to show that the measurements given in Exs C1 to C6 for the plaint schedule property by the Advocate Commissioner is incorrect. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned First appellate Judge/Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
3. In fine, this civil revision is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in I.A.No.203 of 2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2004. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to dispose of A.S.No.19 of 2004 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to file objections to the revision petitioners for Exs C1 to C6. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.
