The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.231 of 2002 in the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad, against his brother, the petitioner herein, and their mother, the 2nd respondent, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. The 1st respondent filed an affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination as P.W.1, and filed Exs.A-1 to A-19 as documents. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to record his cross-examination. On behalf of the 1st respondent herein, it was urged that a compromise had emerged between the parties and the cross-examination of P.W.1 must be restricted only to the contents and outcome of such compromise, and not to other aspects. The petitioner objected to the same. The trial Court overruled the objection and accepted the contention of the 1st respondent herein, through its order dated 09-01-2006. C.R.P.No.1227 of 2006 is filed against the said order.

2. The 1st respondent has also filed I.A. No.490 of 2005 under Order 12 Rule 3-A C.P.C., with a prayer to record the admission of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein, about the documents said to have been signed on 04-07-2005. It was alleged that a settlement, in relation to the suit schedule property has been arrived at, and that the same was reduced into writing. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit stating that though an effort was made in the direction of bringing about a settlement, it did not fructify. It was urged that the documents relied upon by the 151 respondent were kept with a common friend and elderly person, with a specific understanding that the same can be delivered to the parties only after the settlement is finalised, and contrary to the same, the said elderly man colluded with the 151 respondent, and gave the documents to the latter, by playing fraud. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through a separate order dated 16-09-2005. C.R.P.No.1260 of 2006 is filed against the said order.

3. Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court had deviated from the settled procedure in the adjudication of the suit, and the orders passed by it, have the effect of putting premium on the fraud played by the 1st respondent. He contends that the Court could have taken notice of only such settlement, as was arrived at between the parties, and there was no justification on its part, in acting upon the one sided version, put forward by the 1st respondent.

4. Sri S. Balachand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the effort of his client was, only to apprise the Court, of the developments, that have taken place subsequent to the filing of the suit. He contends that when the petitioner himself agreed for a particular course of action, for resolving the disputes between himself and the 1st respondent, he was not entitled to resile from the same.

5. The 1st respondent filed the suit for partition against his mother and brother, the petitioner herein. The nature and contents of the pleadings, by the respective parties, is not before this Court. Obviously, because there was triable issue in the matter, the trial Court proceeded with the recording of evidence. The 1st respondent filed an affidavit, in lieu of chief examination. He has also filed certain documents. The record discloses that the 1st respondent is just 42 years old, hale and healthy. Even then, the trial Court had chosen to appoint a Commissioner to record his cross-examination. The interesting part of the matter is that the respondents did not apply for appointment of commissioner. The amendment made to Rule 4 of Order 18 C.P.C., providing for appointment of Commissioners, for recording of cross-examination, was resorted to, almost as a matter of course. Obviously, taking advantage of the fact that the cross-examination was being recorded by the Commissioner, the 1st respondent started dictating terms, as to what qu