The court clarified the permissible scope of appointing multiple commissioners in ongoing litigation and emphasized the importance of timely resolutions in civil disputes.

JUDGMENT

Both these petitions are filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.377/2017 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. O.P.No.1465/2018 is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by lifting an interim injunction granted as per Ext.P12, while orders were passed on Ext.P14 application filed by the defendant in the suit. O.P.No.1816/2018 is filed aggrieved by the order of appointing a commission by the sub court, while considering an appeal filed challenging the order in Ext.P14 referred above.

2. The facts in a nutshell is that the petitioner herein filed a suit along with his brother as O.S.No.377/2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. The case is that the second respondent along with the petitioner and another brother started an automobile service station in the premises owned by the first respondent. It is the case that as there was an attempt to forcefully evict him, a suit was filed and an interim injunction obtained against the first respondent. After the appearance of the first respondent he moved an application as Ext.P14. While considering the same, the injunction granted as per Ext.P12 was vacated and granted an injunction against the petitioner. Hence as already stated, C.M.A.No.2/2018 as well as O.P.1465/2018 has been filed against the said order. The original petition before this court was filed as while granting injunction in Ext.P14, the injunction granted in favour of the petitioner herein in Ext.P12 was vacated. A commissioner was appointed while considering C.M.A.2/2018 which was filed challenging the above impugned order of injunction.

3. Now, while considering O.P.(C)No.1465/20168, a report was called from the Sub Judge who is considering the C.M.A. It is reported that “On 25.05.2018 appellant filed an application for appointment of commission as I.A.275/18 and it was posted to 11.06.2018. On 11.06.2018 respondent appeared and prayed for objection to both IAs and the case was adjourned to 12.06.2018. On 12.06.2018 objection was filed to the commission application and matter was heard and posted for orders to 13.06.2018. On 13.06.2018 commission application was allowed. Adv.Ashish Oommen George was appointed as Advocate commissioner.”

4. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that without setting aside the earlier commission application, another commissioner was appointed in the same matter. It cannot be said that it is an illegality. Surely, another commission report also will be available in the file. If the court is not satisfied with the earlier commission report, the court is justified to call another commission report. Thus there is nothing to interfere with the appointment of another commissioner by the sub judge, Thiruvalla. 5. The next point is regarding lifting of interim injunction while considering Ext.P14. It can be seen that it is an application filed by the defendant in O.S.No.377/2017 for an injunction, pending considering of the suit by the petitioner herein. That was considered by the court and was allowed. It can be seen that it is now under the consideration of the appellate court in C.M.A.2/2018. Thus, I am not making any opinion at this stage, as the matter is under the consideration of the appellate court. It is further seen that a time limit was prescribed for the disposal of the suit by this court. Surely, the petitioner herein got a case that it was without notice to the petitioner. Thus, considering the spirit of the said order and the totality of the case the following directions are given :

i) The Sub Court, Thiruvalla shall dispose of C.M.A.No.2/2018 expeditiously. If the original records are already called from the court below, retaining photocopies of the relevant records necessary for disposal of appeal, it shall be sent back to the trial court immediately.

ii) The trial court shall on receipt of the records proceed with the matter and shall dispose of the suit expeditiously, with an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of the original records from the appell