The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is unnecessary when sufficient evidence is already presented, and parties must substantiate their claims independently.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed in IA. No.349/2014, Ext.P8 order passed in IA No.452/2014 and Ext.P9 order passed in IA No.349/2014 in OS No.28/2009 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pala, the 1st defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 3 and 4 are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.

2. The short background facts leading to Exts.P6, P8 and P9 orders are: the respondents 1 and 2 instituted Ext.P1 plaint against the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4, inter-alia, for a decree to execute the sale deed in respect of plaint item No.1 property after permitting the respondents 1 and 2 to deposit an amount of Rs.25.2 lakh with the 3rd respondent Bank. The suit was resisted by the petitioner through Ext.P2 written statement. At the instance of respondents 1 and 2, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and Ext.P3 report and sketch were placed on record. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.349/2014 (Ext.P4) to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner to be assisted by a Civil Engineer to assess the value of the building in the plaint schedule property and the articles lying in the building. The said application was opposed by the petitioner through Ext.P5 written objection. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, allowed Ext.P4 application. Even though the petitioner filed I.A.No.452/2014, to review Ext.P6 order, the court below, by the impugned Ext.P8 order reviewed Ext. P6 order and by the impugned Ext.P9 order, allowed Ext.P4 application. Exts.P6, P8 and P9 orders are patently wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri. P.C. Haridas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saju N.A., the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Even though notice has been served on the respondents 1, 2 and 4, there is no appearance for them.

4. The short question is, whether there is any illegality in Exts.P6, P8 and P9 orders.

5. Ext.P1 plaint is instituted seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Directing the 1st defendant to execute a sale deed in respect of plaint schedule item No.1 after allowing the plaintiff to deposit the sum of Rs.25.2 (Rupees twenty five lakhs and twenty thousand only) with the 2nd defendant Bank or in the alternative to declare that document 438/2006 and 437/2006 of Sub-Registry, Kanjirappally is only as a security executed by the 1st plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant towards loan transaction and the said document shall not effect the title and possession of the 1st plaintiff over plaint item No.1 property.

(ii) Directing the 1st defendant to return the two blank cheques signed and delivered to the 1st defendant by the 1st plaintiff in his account maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce and Federal Bank Ltd. and 10 numbers of blank signed stamp papers and blank papers affixed with adhesive revenue stamps and signed by him and to return the blank cheque No.272768 of the Indian Bank signed and delivered to the 1st defendant by the 2nd plaintiff.

(iii) To pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant and his men from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or interfering with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the same.

(iv) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.

(v) To allow the plaintiffs to realise the costs of this suit from the 1st defendant and his assets.

6. The petitioner resisted the suit through Ext.P2 written statement.

7. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.147/2009 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to elucidate certain matters regarding the lie and location of the property, the details of the building and the articles lying inside the building.

8. The court below allowed the above application and the Advocate Commissioner filed Ext.P3 report and sketch.

9. Thereafter, the respondents 1 and 2 again filed Ext.P4