The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order and decreetal order dated 16.12.2008 passed in I.A.No.184 of 2008 in O.S.No.325 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.
2. The suit has been filed for declaration and for recovery of vacant possession of the suit item No.2 after removal of compound wall and for other relief. Pending suit, I.A.No.153 of 2003 has been filed for appointment of advocate-commissioner to measure and locate the S.No.497/10A and 497/10B along with the assistance of Government Surveyor and thereafter to fix the dividing line between S.No.497/10A and the suit item No.1 and file a report with sketch. The application was allowed. An advocate commissioner was appointed. In the presence of counsel for either side, the advocate-Commissioner measured the suit property with the help of Taluk Surveyor. On 18.2.2006, the Taluk Surveyor measured the suit property. A sketch was prepared by the Taluk Surveyor. In the report of the advocate-commissioner, it is clearly stated that the boundary stones were found on all the extremity and there was no need to fix fresh boundary stone and the existing of boundary are correct.
3. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed objection to the commissioner's report stating inter alia that the surveyor has not verified the correctness of the existing stones and the surveyor assumed that the existing stray stones are the correct stones. The nature of survey is haphazard. The further objection is that the surveyor acted arbitrarily and was siding the defendant, who is a rich and influential person and this appears to be the main objection.
4. Commissioner's report was filed in the year 2006 and the objection to it was filed on 3.11.2006. Thereafter, on 28.1.2008 I.A.No.184 of 2008 has been filed in O.S.No.325 of 2000 for appointment of advocate commissioner to inspect the property with the help and aid of District Surveyor and to measure the property and to fix the demarcating line between the properties which is the subject matter of the suit. Such application was heard and dismissed on 16.12.2008 and hence the present Civil Revision Petition.
5. While dismissing such application, the court below came to conclusion that the intention of the party is to drag on the suit proceedings. The I.A.No.184 of 2008 has been filed for the very same purpose of surveying the property. The filing of such application for the same purpose is only to drag on the suit proceedings. The advocate commissioner has been earlier appointed and the property has been surveyed by a taluk surveyor. The court below came to conclusion that the suit has been unduly delayed for more than eight years and finding no bona fide reason to allow the application, dismissed the same.
6. Having gone through the order of the court below and the nature of relief sought for in the I.A.No.184 of 2008, it is apparent that the suit is of the year 2000 and the petitioner filed I.A.No.153 of 2004 for appointment of advocate-commissioner to survey the property and that has been ordered and the survey has been conducted in the presence of the parties and the counsel and the report has been filed in the year 2006. After more than two years, the present I.A.No.184 of 2008 has been filed for the very same relief, except with a modification that the survey should be done by the District Surveyor. The petitioner cannot be allowed to improve his case by this process. It will be nothing, but abuse of process of court. The second application for the very same relief only shows the intention of the party is to drag on the court proceedings as rightly pointed out by the trial court. The plaintiff/revision petitioner can establish his case based on oral and documentary evidence on record. Merely because the report of the advocate commissioner is not to the satisfaction of the revision petitioner, court will not show indulgence by appointing another advocate commissioner to do the very same work. The second petition filed for the very same purpose is improper. I find no error in the order of the court below to interfere with the same.