JUDGMENT

Confronted with Ext.P6 order passed in I.A.No.3/2022 in O.S.No.207/2014 by the Court of the Munsiff, Chengannur, the defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

2. The skeletal facts leading to Ext.P6 order are: the respondent has filed the above suit against the petitioner for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The petitioner has resisted the suit through Ext.P2 written statement. While so, the respondent filed I.A.No.2/2022 (Ext.P4) to appoint an advocate commissioner to be assisted by a surveyor. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.3/2022 (Ext.P5) for the very same relief and sought for certain additional matters to be elucidated. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, has only partly allowed Ext.P5 application. Ext.P6 order is palpably wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard, Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission.

4. The short point is, whether there is any illegality in Ext.P6 order.

5. The suit has been filed by the respondent for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The same has been resisted by the respondent thro