JUDGMENT :

The functional role of a Partition Commissioner and the statutory obligation of Courts while dealing with the report of such Commissioner, in a suit for partition, under the ambit of Order XXVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure is called under scanner by the appellant in this appeal.

2. This appeal was originally preferred by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.81/1997 on the files of the Court of the Sub Judge, Attingal; but pending this lis, the second appellant applied to transpose himself as the sixth respondent giving up the challenge against the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, as now matters stand, there is only one appellant, who is the first defendant in the aforementioned suit.

3. The appellant alleges that the final judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been issued in flagrant violation of the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the CPC'), since the said Court has accepted the report of the Commissioner even without considering the objections filed by him against the same.

4. The appellant says that, as is clear from the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has recorded that objections had been filed by him much prior