JUDGMENT :

Additional defendant No.3 in a suit challenges the order issuing a Survey Commission to measure and identify a pathway over which the plaintiff claimed the right of easement by prescription in this proceeding.

2. The plaintiff instituted the original suit seeking a declaration of prescriptive easement right over the property scheduled as ‘C’ in the plaint. The plaintiff is the owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, the dominant tenement. Defendants are the owners of plaint ‘B’ schedule property, the servient tenement. ‘C’ schedule property, the way, runs through the ‘B’ schedule property. It is averred that the way has a length of 36.8ms and width of 3ms.

3. At the time of institution of the suit, the plaintiff applied for a Commission. The Commissioner prepared Ext.P4 commission Report and rough sketch. Later, on the application of defendant No.1, the Commissioner prepared Ext.P5 commission report and rough sketch.

4. The plaintiff filed Ext.P6 application contending that Exts.P4 and P5 commission reports and rough sketches do not contain the precise measurements regarding ‘C’ schedule way. The trial Court allowed the application and issued a Commission consisting of an