(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside Fair & Decreetal order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the District Munsif, Musiri in I.A.No.858 of 2014 in O.S.No.385 of 2013.)

1. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.385 of 2013 on the file of learned the District Munsif, Musiri and in the suit, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs sought for declaration among other various reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.858 of 2014 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and note down its measurements with the assistance of a Surveyor and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, stating that there is no need to consider appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in this case, as there is no dispute between the parties regarding identification of suit properties and the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to collect evidence through Advocate Commissioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for R1 and the learned Government Advocate for R5 to R8. There is no representation for R2 to R4.

3. It is the case of the revision petitioners that originally, the suit schedule properties were owned by their father Kathaperumal Nattar, who inherited the properties by way of partition deed and the said deed was registered on 25.02.1938 and after the demise of Kathaperumal Nattar, the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant and the husband of the 2nd defendant have partitioned the properties by way of oral agreement, except the suit schedule properties. It is the further case of the revision petitioners that when the plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 08.07.2013 to the 1st defendant regarding the hindrance being caused by the defendants 1 to 4, for which, they sent a reply on 13.07.2013, stating that the suit schedule properties are in joint possession and the plaintiffs have no right to convert the joint patta into an individual patta. It is also submitted that actually, the properties are solely owned by the revision petitioners and unless or until an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to ascertain the above fact, they have no other option to establish their case orally. Therefore, they filed an application before the Trial Court for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the actual position in respect of the properties. But the Trial Court, instead of exercising its discretion vested under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, dismissed the said application.

4. The revision petitioners state that it is mandate on the part of the Trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner with a mission to visit the suit property with the help of a Surveyor and measure the same by referring to the Survey Map and documents of both sides and note down the physical features. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shanmugathai vs. Kamalammal and another reported in 2017 (2) MWN (Civil) 315, wherein this Court was pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of inspection of the suit property.

5. In the said judgment, this Court held as follows:

“11. Admittedly the present petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was filed only at the stage of arguments, however the relief sought for in the suit is one for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession after declaration of the title. When the respective defendant deny the lie and location of disputed construction and specifically assert that the construction is within their property and there is no encroachment, the nature of dispute could be resolved only if the exact location of construction is brought to the knowledge of court, which cannot be done except by appointment of advocate commissioner. Thus mere delay in filing the application after the case was posted for arguments is not a ground for dismissal of application and substantial justice requires that the appointment of commissioner is very much necessary to decide the lis.

12. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the Judgment of this Honble Court in the case of Panjavarnam and others Vs- Visuvasam Jeyaseeli (CRP(NPD)(MD)No.2192 of 2012) wherein it was held that the advocate commissioner if appointed would be able to visit the suit property with the help of a surveyor, measure the same and locate it and also note down as to what are all in existence in the suit property. Noting down the physical features would not amount to culling out the evidence. Further this court enunciated the importance of the maxim that A Picture is worth a thousand words. Further it was held by this Honble Court in the said Judgment that it is mandate on the part of Lower court to appoint an advocate commissioner with a mission to visit the suit property with the help of surveyor and measure the same by referring to the survey map and documents of both sides and note down the physical features.

13. In yet another decision of this Court in the case of Vaithinattar and another v. Sakkubal Ammal reported in AIR 2004 Madras 419 it is held that in a suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction, the dispute pertaining to portion of adjoining lands allegedly encroached by the defendants and the defendants denying that there was no such encroachment. This Honble Court held that the best evidence in such case could be obtained only by the Appointment of advocate commissioner. Therefore in my considered view, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent herein by appointing the advocate commissioner to visit the suit property along with the surveyor and note down the physical features. In fact, the advocate commissioners report and plan would enable the court for the purpose of throwing more light or enlighten to arrive at a fair decision. Thus the appointment of commissioner is necessary and therefore the order of court below is liable to be set-aside.”

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/1st defendant would contend that there is no justifiable reason adduced in support of seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the 1st defendant is aged above 80 and in order to drag on the proceedings, the application had been filed. Therefore, no necessity arose for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner as sought by the petitioners and the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

7. Admittedly, the present petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was filed at the stage of conducting the proceedings in the suit and the nature of dispute could only be resolved, only if the exact location / status of the suit property is identified, which cannot be done except by appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Noting down the physical features and other things would not amount to culling out the evidence and no prejudice will be caused to other side in such appointment of Advocate Commissioner. It is seen that several disputes regarding possession of properties, patta, etc., revolve around the suit properties and therefore, this Court is of the view that appointment of Advocate Commissioner will be helpful for the Trial Court to sort out the issue in letter and spirit and there is no justification in the contention raised by the defendants that only to drag on the proceedings, the petition has been filed. Therefore, in my considered opinion, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is essential.

8. In the result,

a) this civil revision petition is allowed and the Fair and Decreetal order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the District Munsif, Musiri in I.A.No.858 of 2014 in O.S.No.385 of 2013, is set aside;

b) the learned District Munsif, Musiri is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to ascertain the actual position. note down the physical features of the suit property, etc., along with Surveyor with a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to file a report within a period of one month from the date of such appointment;

c) on filing the report by the Advocate Commissioner, the learned District Munsif, Musiri is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months thereafter.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.