Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/caveators.
2. The order passed in I.A.No.914 of 2008 in O.S.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Court of District Munsif,Mettur is under challenge in this revision. The said application was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property scheduled to the plaint by the defendants 1 to 5 in the suit. The suit is for bare injunction. The learned trial Judge, after going through the averments in the affidavit to the petition as well as in the counter filed by the respondents/plaintiffs had dismissed the said application holding that for deciding the issue whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an order of permanent injunction or not , the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features is absolutely not necessary. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the learned trial Judge which is a well considered one. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would state that an amendment application is also pending before the trial Court filed by the plaintiffs. A perusal of the affidavit to the unnumbered petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 at page 45 of the typed set of papers also shows that the plaintiffs have not asked for any amendment in the plaint relief column. But, the said amendment application is to be decided by the trial Judge on merits.
3. In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed before admission. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.
13.04.2009 Index:Yes Internet:yes sg To The District Munsif, Mettur A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J sg C.R.P(NPD)No.837/2009 13.4.2009