village. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that he is in possession of four cents comprised in S.No. 257/3 in Seevalaperi village and only due to the cloud in the location of the said 4 cents, the suit came to be filed by the plaintiff for declaration and recovery of possession. An application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is filed in I.A.No.23 of 2010 wherein Mr.Balan, Advocate was appointed as an Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no objection in Mr.Balan being appointed as an Advocate Commissioner. However, it is evident from the commissioner application that, the same was filed only for the purpose of measuring the second item of the suit property. In view of the same, the revision petitioner/defendant anticipates that at the time of inspection, the Advocate Commissioner may not proceed towards measuring the entire property on the basis of the revenue records. Hence, the petitioner filed the present interlocutory application and it is necessary to direct the Advocate Commissioner to measure the property as per revenue records. However, the Court below dismissed the petition in I.A.No.471 of 2013 stating that the delay and non-cooperation of the revision petitioner/defendant in producing documents to the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed as per the order in I.A.No.23 of
