JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed assailing Ext.P8 order passed by Court of the Additional Munsiff-III, Thiruvananthapuram in IA No.10/2023 in OS No.309/2014.

2. The brief relevant facts leading to Ext.P8 order are:

(i) The petitioner has filed the above suit for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. The suit is resisted by the respondent through Ext.P2 written statement.

(ii) The petitioner had filed Ext.P3 application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of elucidating matters stated in the application.

(iii) Although the application was allowed and the petitioner paid the commission batta, the Advocate Commissioner did not inspect the property or file any report.

(iv) Later, on 23.07.2018, the respondent filed Ext.P4 application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner opposed the application through Ext.P4(a) objection.

(v) Yet, the court below allowed the application and the Advocate Commissioner filed Ext.P5 report in July 2019.

(vi) The petitioner filed Ext.P6 objection to Ext.P5 report as early as on 06.09.2021. But, the objection was not considered.

(vii) The suit was recently listed for trial. The petitioner filed his proof affidavit