K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

O.P (C) No.2020 of 2014

---------------------------------------

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2025

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S No.80/2013 is the petitioner. The plaintiff instituted the Original Suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential injunction in respect of the plaint property. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC to appoint a Commissioner. The Trial Court issued a commission. The Commissioner filed Ext.P3 report.

2. Defendant No.2 filed I.A No.415/2014 under Order XXVI Rule 10 (3) seeking to set aside the commission report, inter alia contending that the report cannot be accepted as the same was prepared by the Commissioner, who is allegedly a relative of the plaintiff to help him in the proceedings. The Trial Court allowed the application as per Ext.P7 order essentially holding that the commission report is incomplete. The learned Trial Court set aside the report and appointed another Commissioner to conduct local investigation in the plaint property. This order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner conten