The revision petitioner/plaintiff has laid the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2013 for declaration and permanent injunction. As seen from the records, it is found that on the application filed by the revision petitioner seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit property and to note down its physical features etc., and accordingly, it is found that the Advocate Commissioner having filed his report, the said application in I.A.No.974 of 2013 came to be closed. It is found that thereafter, the suit had been listed for trial on 09.04.2015. At that stage of the matter, the revision petitioner had preferred an application in I.A.No.457 of 2015 to condone the delay in filing objections to the Commissioner's report. The above said application was allowed on 13.08.2015. Thereafter, it is seen that the revision petitioner has preferred an application in I.A.No.1016 of 2015 for scrapping the report of the Advocate Commissioner and for re-issuing the commission warrant again to another Advocate to inspect and measure the suit property. The said application was hotly contested by the respondents/defendants. The Lower Court, on a co