Shiva Reddy and Chandra Reddi were two brothers, Shiva Reddy died, leaving behind him his son Damodar Reddy. When he was aged 19 years, Damodar Reddy filed a suit being O.S. No. 104/1/1358 Fasli, in the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against his paternal uncle, Ranga Reddy, and his sons for partition of the suit schedule lands. The suit was presented on 06-06-1947. Two months and a week thereafter, the country got independence and it was partitioned. About a decade thereafter, the State in which the suit was filed; was trifurcated. Few decades thence the District in which the suit was pending, was bifurcated. The original plaintiff and the 1st defendant died. Even after six decades, the properties remained unpartitioned. It would tell, either upon the perseverance of the parties, or defect in the system, or partly both.

2. O.S. No. 104/1/1358 Fasli was renumbered as O.S. No. 27/1 of 1955. A preliminary decree was passed in the year 1955. C.C.C.A. No. 3 of 1963 was filed before this Court against the preliminary decree. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court. Thereafter, the suit was re-numbered as O.S. No. 50 of 1965. After remand, a preliminary decree was passed on 11-08-1970. After the preliminary decree became final, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, the petitioners herein, initiated final decree proceedings. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court, somewhere in the year 1985. He submitted a report. Not satisfied with the report, and certain steps taken by the Commissioner, the respondents insisted appointment of another Commissioner. Accordingly, a second Commissioner was appointed in June 1987. It took one-and-half decades for the Commissioner, to submit the report, dividing the property into two equal shares, in terms of the preliminary decree. The 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.12 of 2004, for summoning the Commissioner for cross-examination.

Identical application, being I.A.No.84 of 2003, was also filed by some of the other respondents. The petitioners opposed the application. Through order dated 28-02-2006, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.

3. Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the effort of the respondents in proposing to cross-examine the Commissioner is only to protract the proceedings and that there are no bona fides on their part. He contends that the report submitted by the Commissioner is a material, which the Court can take into account, while passing the final decree, and if the respondents have any objection to it, they can certainly put forward the same. He submits that the respondents did not co-operate with the Commissioner, in spite of his best efforts, and ultimately, when the report is submitted, it is being attacked on non-existent and dubious grounds.

4. Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel, appeared for the 1st respondent and Sri Murali Narayan Bung, for respondent No.4, submit that there are serious lapses and inconsistencies in the report submitted by the Commissioner, and that the same can be clarified, if only the Commissioner is examined as a witness. They point out that much delay took place at the hands of the Commissioner, and the respondents cannot be blamed for it. Submissions, touching on merits have also been made. None appeared for respondents 2 and 3.

5. Several decades after the suit came to be filed, it is at the stage of final decree proceedings. Two generations have passed, ever since the suit was instituted. The adjudication of the suit itself did not present much of a problem. Plaintiff on the one hand, and the defendants on the other hand represented two branches of the family. Much controversy was, as to the properties that are available for partition with the passing of preliminary decree, this also stood resolved.

6. Appointment of a Commissioner under Rule 13 of Order 26 read with Rule