G.RAJASURIA, J. - (1.)THE facts giving rise to filing of the revision petition as stood exposited from the plaint, pithily and precisely, tersely and briefly set out thus: The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 298 of 2006 seeking the following relief: -permanent injunction interdicting and restraining the defendants, their men, servants and cohorts from in anyway interfering with the plaintiff -s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in particular from cultivating the same. -
(2.)DURING the pendency of the suit, the first defendant filed I.A.No. 324 of 2007 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property concerned and note the physical features, but the trial Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the trial Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant would develop his argument to the effect that as per document, the plaintiff was entitled to a total extent of 1.25 acres alone and not 1.33 acres; however, he managed to get sub -division of 8 cents alone after selling an extent of 1.25 acres in favour of the revision petitioner -s vendor, from whom the revision petitioner purchased an extent of 25 cents; now the plaintiff is seeking to virtually recover from the revision petitioner an extent of 8 cents from out of his 25 cents holding; as such if the property is measured and found that the actual available extent on ground is only 1.25 acres, then the entire matter would get solved.
Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents would put forth his argument that in the suit filed for permanent injunction, the defendant had no right to get an Advocate Commissioner appointed so as to measure the suit property and note the physical features.