1. In a suit for recovery of possession of property after demolishing a wall alleged to have been constructed in the encroached property a commissioner was deputed to measure and identify the property and for demarcating the boundary line. The report submitted by the commissioner was objected to by both parties. The report was then remitted to the commissioner. This process was repeated twice and the trial court again remitted the report to the commissioner since both parties requested for remitting the report to the commissioner for submitting a fresh report in the light of objections they have raised also. Then the commissioner, without making any further local inspection, submitted his fourth report (he has styled it as a 'further report') stating that all the details noted by him in his reports and plans dated 22-2-1980 and 2-2-1981 were correct and that there was 'nothing more to add' or there was 'anything to deviate from the particulars furnished therein'. Thereupon, the defendants-petitioners again filed objections to the report and requested the court by an Interlocutory Application to remit the report to the commissioner with a direction to submit a fresh repo