The respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner. In the said suit, the respondent filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property. Since there was an allegation that the petitioner trespassed into the property of the respondent, a prayer was made in the application for Commission to inspect the property shown in Schedule B. The application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge notwithstanding the objection raised by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.
3. There is a bonafide dispute as to whether the petitioner trespassed into a portion of the property owned by the respondent. It was only to clear the doubt, the Trial Court issued a Commission. The appointment of Advocate Commissioner is justified on account of the nature of the dispute. I do not find any error or illegality in the order warranting interference by exercising the revisional jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. In the up shot, I dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.06.2017 svki To I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
(svki) C.R.P.(P.D.) No. 2824 of 2013 07.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in