party. It is also undisputed that the plaintiff had not filed any appeal and only the defendant had preferred the appeal. The adjudication of the appeal is limited as far as the findings of the Trial Court in directing the Court below to take possession of the property from the defendant i.e., the only scope of enquiry before the Appellate Court, as no appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. Now, in this background, the present application came to be filed by the LRs of the plaintiff saying that on advocate commissioner has to be appointed for inspection of possession of the suit property. In the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose will be served by this application as in an appeal filed by the defendant, the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has not preferred an appeal cannot have any benefit or order from the Court below and that a part when it was asked for the inspection and possession of the suit property, the Court below had passed an order of appointing an advocate commissioner. Observing that the commissioner is appointed to find out whether the property was locked or house was damaged or to find out the location of the suit property, for that the appointment of advocate commissioner is necessary. Even the reasoning given by the Court below is not a sound reasoning
