The role of Advocate Commissioners is clarified, emphasizing that their reports must be based on actual observations and not tailored to parties' desires while reaffirming the limits of High Court powers under Article 227.

JUDGMENT

Confronted with Ext.P7 order passed in I.A No.1/2022 in O.S No.190/2006 by the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha, the plaintiffs in the suit have filed the original petition. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.

2. The skeletal background facts leading to Ext.P7 order are:

2.1 The petitioners have filed the suit against the respondents for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. Later, the plaint was amended and the prayer for recovery of possession on the strength of title was incorporated.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that the plaint schedule property having an extent of 6 cents of land devolved on them through their predecessor in interest who purchased the property as per sale deed No.1440/1973 of SRO, Pulincunnu. The plaint schedule property is lying within the well demarcated boundaries. The first respondent and the fifth respondent are residing on the eastern side of the petitioners property. There is considerable reduction of land to the extent of 2.50 cents. It is learnt that the first respondent has higher extent of land in survey records.

Hence the suit.

2.3. The suit has been resisted by the first respondent by filing Ext.P2 written statement, the respondents 2 to 4 – the State and its revenue officers – through Ext.P3 written statement and by the fifth respondent through Ext.P4 written statement.

2.4. At the instance of the petitioners, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Later, the report was set aside and other Advocate Commissioner was appointed.

That report was also set aside. Again, at the instance of the fifth respondent, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed with the assistance of a Surveyor. The petitioners filed a work memo before the Advocate Commissioner. However, the said report was again remitted to the Commissioner.

2.5. The trial in the suit was completed on

29.10.2019.

2.6. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report on

4.1.2022.

2.7. The respondents 2 to 4 have raised the contention in the written statement that there is puramboke land within the plaint schedule property. Hence, the Court directed the property to be measured excluding the puramboke land.

2.8 Accordingly, the petitioners filed I.A No.1/2022 to set aside the commission report, principally for the reason that the puramboke register was not relied on by the survey authorities. But, the court below, without considering Ext.P6 application in its proper perspective, dismissed the application by the impugned Ext.P7 order and has posted the suit for final hearing to 13.2.2023.

2.9 Ext.P7 order is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.S.Sidhardhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to

4, on admission.

4. The short question is, whether there is any illegality in Ext.P7 order.

5. The suit is filed in the year 2006 for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. The respondents have filed Exts.P2 to P4 written statements resisting the suit more than a decade back.

6. Undisputedly, the trial is completed and the suit was posted for final hearing to 13.2.2023.

7. On an evaluation of the pleadings and materials on record, it can be gathered that, the commission report and sketch have been pushed back and forth at the instance of the parties for the last one and half decades. I say this because of the following sequence of events:

(i) Initially, an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a Surveyor were appointed and a report and sketch were filed.

(ii) Thereafter, I.A No.3798/2008 was filed to set aside the report and sketch, which was allowed by the court below on 8.3.2010.

(iii) Subsequently, another Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who filed the report on 6.9.2010.

(iv) Again, I.A No.3592/2010 was filed to set aside the report which was dismissed by the court below on

13.7.2011.

(v) Later, at the instance of the fifth respondent, I.A No.2243/2014 was filed to appoint