ORDER
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He filed the suit against the respondents herein and five others in O.S. No. 71 of 1995 for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit property by forming a pathway. Earlier, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit property and the report was filed by him. Having not satisfied with the report of the Commissioner, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 1376 of 2002 to re-open the matter and to re-issue the warrant directing the Advocate Commissioner to make further inspection and to file the report. This has been dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, during the pendency of the suit in O.S. No. 71 of 1995, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 937 of 1997 for the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to verify whether any pathway exists in the suit property as alleged by the defendants, the respondents herein and the Advocate Commissioner without prior notice to the petitioner inspected the property along with the Surveyor and filed the report. Even though the objection was filed to the report of the Advocate Commissioner by the petitioner, the application has been closed and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file another application in I.A. No. 1376 of 2002 to re-open the matter and to re-issue the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the affidavit and other records filed by the petitioner.
4. On a perusal of the petition and the counter filed before the trial Court and the impugned order, it is seen that the particulars given in the affidavit filed along with the civil revision petition are factually incorrect. In the year 1995, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 71 of 1995 against the respondents and others seeking for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property alleging that there is no pathway in the suit property and the respondents are trespassing into the suit property to form a new pathway. The written statement has been filed by the defendants in February 1996 stating that there is a pathway being used by the defendants. In the year 1997, the respondents filed an application in I.A. No. 937 of 1997 requesting for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property to verify whether the pathway as alleged by the respondents exists or not. Accordingly, on 7.3.1998, as per the orders of the trial Court, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the suit property. On 20.3.1998, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 596 of 1998 to re-issue the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner and the same has been allowed on 30.4.1998. However, no steps have been taken by the petitioner to take the Advocate Commissioner to make further inspection and therefore, the Advocate Commissioner to whom the warrant was re-issued was constrained to file the report on 29.6.1998 on the basis of the inspection earlier made on 7.3.1998. Both in the counter filed by the respondents before the trial court and in the impugned order, it has been specifically mentioned that objection was not filed by the petitioner for the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner on 29.6.1998. On the other hand, the respondents filed an objection on 13.7.1998 to the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
5. There is no dispute in the fact that the petition in I.A. No. 937 of 1997 filed by the respondents was closed on 29.6.1998 as soon as the report of the Advocate Commissioner was filed. Now, it is submitted before this Court by the counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the affidavit filed before this Court that he only filed an application in I.A. No. 937 of 1997 for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner and to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, he filed objection. This is wrong because I.A. No. 937 of 1997 was filed by the respondents for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner.
6. Though the typed set has contained the copy of the objection dated 11.8.1998, the impugned order would show that no such objection was raised by filing an objection petition on 11.8.1998. On the other hand, the petitioner filed an application for re-issue of the warrant in I.A. No. 596 of 1998 on 20.3.1998 and the same was ordered on 30.4.1998.
7. Despite the opportunity given to the petitioner, the same was not availed of. Without taking any steps to execute the order passed by the trial Court on 30.4.1998, the petitioner has presented this application in I.A. No. 1376 of 2002 i.e. after 4 ” years to re-issue the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner. These things have not been mentioned in the affidavit filed before this Court.
8. Further, no reasons have been given as to why the steps have not been taken for executing the order dated 30.4.1998. The petitioner has not given any explanation as to why he waited for 4 ” years even though he obtained orders in his favour as early as on 30.4.1998 itself. Mere putting the blame on the advocate who is said to be not present on the date of inspection would not be a ground to hold that the prayer belatedly made by the petitioner is bona fide.
9. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 5045 and 5046 of 2003 are also dismissed.