2.In the said circumstances, the petitioners herein filed another one application in I.A.No.508 of 2016 to appoint a new Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram, by order dated 03.12.2018 dismissed the said application stating that there is no necessity to appoint a new Advocate Commissioner. The detailed order passed by the Court below reveals that before filing the application in I.A.No.508 of 2016, the petitioners have not taken any steps to scrap the Advocate Commissioner report filed in earlier. Further, they have not taken steps to revisit the property by utilizing the service of the same Advocate Commissioner. Now on go through the detailed order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, it is correct to state that the settled proposition in this regard is that without scarping the earlier report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, appointment of a new Advocate Commissioner is unnecessary. More than that the petitioners are having liberty to file their objection and also having chance to examine the Advocate Commissioner as witness before relying the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Without utilizing the said opportunity filing the application for appointment of new Commissioner is un-warranted.
