2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application was filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to examine the Village Administrative Officer and the Surveyor. After hearing the arguments, the application was allowed by the Court and Advocate Commissioner filed his report with survey plan. Since there is dispute with the measurements, the petitioner claims that if necessity arises, the Advocate Commissioner or the surveyor will be examined. He can do so only when necessity warrants at the time of argument. This application is allowed at the premature stage. The order of the Sub Judge, Karur says that the Commissioner himself was appointed only at the appellate stage. Therefore, the respondents should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the commissioner and surveyor to appreciate their evidence completely. As the appointment of the Commissioner was taken out by the petitioner at the appellate stage, the objection of the revision petitioner that only when necessity warrants, the Advocate Commissioner or the surveyor has to be examined is not acceptable. The appellate Judge himself had issued the summons to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Village Administrative Officer and Commissioner. There is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the appellate Court.
