The suit has been laid by the revision petitioners / plaintiffs for declaration and possession. As seen from the plaint averments, it is noted that the revision petitioners / plaintiffs sought for possession of the entire suit property as described in the plaint. The said suit is being resisted by the respondents / defendants by filing written statement.
2. At that stage of the matter, it is found that the revision petitioners / plaintiffs have preferred an application, in I.A.No.332 of 2015, seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with the help of the revenue documents and file his report so as to elucidate the extent of the encroachment made by the respondents / defendants in the suit property. The said application having come to be rejected, impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
3. When according to the revision petitioners / plaintiffs, the suit has been laid for the reliefs of declaration and possession and when further according to the revision petitioners / plaintiffs, they seek for possession of the entire property as described in the plaint, as rightly found by the Court below, there is no need for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the extent of the encroachment said to have been made by the respondents / defendants in the suit property. It is seen that the report of the Advocate Commissioner would noway be helpful to the determination of the issues involved in the matter. The issues to be considered is whether the revision petitioners / plaintiffs have title to the suit property and whether they are entitled to obtain the reliefs sought for by them in the plaint. In such view of the matter, the revision petitioners / plaintiffs have to establish their title to the suit property by producing the documents available with them and cannot seek the reliefs by the report of the Advocate Commissioner to sustain their case.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners / plaintiffs, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decision in CDJ 2016 APHC 619 (Bandi Samuel and Another v. Medida Nageswara Rao). The principles of law outlined in the above said decision are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
5. In such view of the matter, the Court below has rightly discountenanced the case of the revision petitioners / plaintiffs and I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order.
6. Resultanly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Munsif, Orathanadu.
.