The suit in O.S.No.19 of 2016 has been laid by the revision petitioner / plaintiff for partition. It is found that the respondents / defendants are contesting the suit preferred by the revision petitioner by projecting a Will. Pending suit, it is seen that the revision petitioner had taken out an application in I.A.No. 98 of 2016 seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features in respect of the second item of the suit properties and file a report with plan. The said application having been resisted by the defendants, the Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, found that there is no need for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the second item of the suit properties and accordingly, rejected the application finding that the same is an attempt on the part of the revision petitioner only to collect evidence in support of her case.
2. According to the revision petitioner, the respondents are attempting to demolish the existing superstructure in the second item of the suit properties and in such view of the matter, according to her, it has become necessary on her part to establish that the superstructure as such stands today and therefore, noting down of the physical features of the property concerned by the Advocate Commissioner is essential. However, as rightly determined by the Court below, when the respondents have not disputed the existence of the superstructure in the second item of the suit properties, as rightly determined by the Court below, there is no need for the inspection of the second item of the suit properties by the Advocate Commissioner for the purpose mentioned in the application. Therefore, it is found that as rightly determined by the Court below, the present application is nothing but an attempt on the part of the revision petitioner to collect evidence in support of her case, which cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law.
4. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the Court below is perfect both factually as well as legally and it does not warrant any interference from this Court.
5. Resultanly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
.