The suit has been laid by the revision petitioner / plaintiff simpliciter for permanent injunction. The said suit is seriously contested by the respondent / defendant. It is found that after adduction of evidence on respective sides and when the matter was listed for argument, at that stage of the matter, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has preferred I.A.No.1079 of 2016 seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property involved in the matter and file a report with plan. According to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, the same would be essential for the proper and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the matter. The said application having came to be rejected by the Court below, impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
2. It is found that the Court below had already appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who had inspected the suit property, noted down its physical features and also filed a report along with plan marked as Exs.C1 and C2. Thereafter, it is found that the parties have preferred objections to the said report. The revision petitioner had also moved another application seeking for re-issuance of the commission for the same purpose and that was also negatived by the Court below. Challenging the same the revision petitioner / plaintiff also preferred C.R.P.(MD) No.4428 of 2016, which has also come to be dismissed by this Court. It is also found that the Commissioner was also examined and tendered his evidence with reference to the same.
3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, inasmuch as the Commissioner deposed evidence that he has not measured the property and thus has not filed his report in pursuance to the order in I.A.No.40 of 2010, it has become necessary to seek for re-issuance of the Commission to inspect the property and note down its physical features again. However, the same was not entertained by the Court below.
4. The suit having been laid by the revision petitioner / plaintiff simpliciter for bare injunction, it is found that it is for the revision petitioner / plaintiff to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by adduction of reliable and acceptable materials available with him and he cannot improve his case by the Commissioner report.
5. Accordingly, as rightly determined by the Court below, the suit property having also been inspected by the Advocate Commissioner and he having filed a report and also having been examined in the Court, it is for the revision petitioner / plaintiff to establish his case by producing acceptable and reliable materials in support of his case and therefore, the present application preferred by him is only a ploy to collect evidence in support of his case, which cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law.
6. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application preferred by the revision petitioner / plaintiff and in such view of the matter, the impugned order does not call for any interference from this Court.
7. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Munsif, Palani.
.