the 1st respondent did not co-operate for inspection and returned the warrant. Thereafter, another Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he also filed a memo for the same reason and returned the warrant. Therefore, the Interlocutory Application filed by the 1st respondent was dismissed. In these circumstances, due to pecuniary jurisdiction, the above suit was transferred to the I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy and renumbered as O.S.No.387 of 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.906 of 2014 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and divide the same into 9 equal shares and allot one such share to the petitioner with the help of local Surveyor and if Advocate Commissioner feels that the property is indivisible, prays for an order to sell the same in public auction and direct him to pay the share to the parties as per the present market value and the same was ordered on 20.12.2016. Based on the order, Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and filed a report along with a plan and now, it is pending for objection.
