C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1079 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.02.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1079 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD) No.5990 of 2024 Arulmighu Sri. Priyakandiyamman Kovil Devendra Kula Velalar, Represented by President/Hereditary Trustee, L.Murugesan, S/o.Loganathan for himself and as Power Agent of other Trustees, No.18, North Mariamman Kovil Street, Koothaippar, Tiruverumbur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli – 620 013 ... Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff Vs. 1. Rajasekar 2. Kamaraj 3. Prasanth 4. Stalin 5. Balu ... Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1079 of 2024 PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 08.12.2023 in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.201/2022 on the file of III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli. For Petitioner : Mrs.M.Rajeswari For Respondents : Mr.S.I.Muthiah O R D E R The plaintiff in O.S.No.201 of 2022 has filed the present revision petition, challenging the order dated 08.12.2023, wherein the trial Court has rejected the request of the plaintiff for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. 2. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the suit has been filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from tresppassing or causing any kind of interference over the suit property in any manner whatsoever with the plaintiff's and other Trustees peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Pending suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.4 of 2022 seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property, so that they could fence the property. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1079 of 2024 3. The respondents/defendants have filed a counter contending that the Commissioner cannot be appointed in a suit for permanent injunction. 4. Considering the fact that the suit is for permanent injunction, the trial Court had dismissed the application with an observation that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features or fixation of four boundaries in a suit for permanent injunction does not arise. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the suit schedule property is a open place and the boundaries have to be fixed by the Advocate Commissioner so that it could be fenced for the benefit of the temple. In paragraph No.7 of the affidavit in I.A.No.4 of 2022 it is averred that they want to safeguard the suit property and they want to fence the property on all four sides and fix boundary stones with the help of the firka surveyor. Therefore, it is clear that they want to utilize the services of an Officer of the Court to help them in collecting evidence for fixing boundaries in a suit for permanent injunction. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the said order. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1079 of 2024 6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 05.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi To 1. The III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(PD)(MD).No.1079 of 2024 R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J. ebsi C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1079 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD) No.5990 of 2024 05.02.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis