The suit, in O.S.No.535 of 2014, has been laid by the respondent / plaintiff for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction.
2. Pending suit, it is found that an Advocate Commissioner had been appointed to inspect the suit property with the help of the qualified surveyor and file a report. It is found that the Advocate Commissioner had accordingly inspected the suit property and filed his report also before the Court below. No doubt, the revision petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, has filed her objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
3. It is found that thereafter, the revision petitioner has preferred another application in I.A.No.347 of 2014 to scarp the Advocate Commissioner's Report and appoint a new Advocate Commissioner. The said application having been dismissed by the Court below, it is found that the revision petitioner aggrieved over the same had preferred the civil revision petition in C.R.P.(MD) No.728 of 2016. This Court had also confirmed the order of the Court below and dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that the re- issuance of Commission will not serve any purpose and the revision petitioner having filed her objections, it is open to her to cross-examine the Advocate Commissioner with reference to her objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
4. It is found that thereafter, as directed by this Court in the above said civil revision petition, the Advocate Commissioner has not been cross- examined by the revision petitioner with reference to the objections put forth by her to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. However, a second application has been preferred in I.A.No.561 of 2016 to scarp the report of the Advocate Commissioner as already sought for in I.A.No.347 of 2014 and the said application having been dismissed by the Court below, impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
5. As rightly found by the Court below, the Advocate Commissioner being a Court Officer and his report having been assailed by the revision petitioner and this Court having directed the revision petitioner to cross-examine the Advocate Commissioner with reference to the objections put forth by her, it is for the revision petitioner to proceed further as directed by this Court in the earlier civil revision petition and not entitled to file a similar application to delay the litigation. Therefore, the Court below seeing the approach and attitude of the revision petitioner, rightly dismissed the application as devoid of merits.
6. In the light of the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below.
7. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Munsif, Peraiyur.
.