The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decreetal order dated 29.7.2009 passed in I.A.No.1415 of 2007 in O.S.No.409 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.
2. The suit has been filed for declaration that the suit pathway is the common pathway for the plaintiff and the defendant and for permanent injunction. Pending suit, I.A.No.1415 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff for appointment of advocate commissioner to measure the cart track in S.No.163/2B with the help of Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer and to file a report. Such application was resisted by the present revision petitioner/defendant. The stand of the revision petitioner/defendant is that there is no such pathway. He relies on certain documents.
3. The trial court, however, rejected the revision petitioner/defendant's plea and appointed the advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property and measure the same with the help of Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer and to file a report. The said order is under challenge.
4. The grievance of the revision petitioner/defendant is that the court below has misconstrued the plea of the revision petitioner/defendant and stated that no documents were filed on both sides, whereas a petition was filed to receive documents and without considering the same, the order was passed. This appears to be the main grievance of the petitioner.
5. The nature of the relief sought for in the suit is to declare that the suit pathway is a common pathway for the plaintiff and the defendant which has to be decided in the trial. As far as the documents said to have been filed by the revision petitioner/defendant is concerned, the same has to be considered by the trial court at the time of trial. For the purpose of appointment of advocate commissioner, the relevance of any documents is not a matter for consideration. In any event, the nature of relief sought for in I.A.No.1415 of 2007 is to measure the suit property and to note down the physical features with the help of Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer and to file a report and plan. That by itself will not prejudice to the revision petitioner/defendant in any way. The plea that documents were not considered is not an issue while dealing with the application filed for appointment of advocate commissioner. There is no serious infirmity in the order of the court below to interfere with by this court.
6. Finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts To The Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam