The court maintained that previously ruled upon applications and findings enforce limits on subsequent claims to ensure judicial consistency and prevent circumvention of prior judicial authority.

JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed challenging the order in IA No.28/2022 (Ext.P10) in O.S. No.191/2014 of the Court of the Munsiff, Nadapuram.

2. The antecedent facts, relevant for the determination of the original petition, are:

(i) The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the above suit which is filed for partition.

(ii) At the time of filing the suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and Ext.P2 commission report and Ext.P3 plan were filed in the suit. At the instance of the respondents 22 to 30, who objected to Exts.P2 and P3 by filing I.A.No.1061/2017, the report and plan were remitted. Then, the Advocate Commissioner filed Ext.P4 report. Subsequently, on the request of the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.P4 report, the Taluk Surveyor was directed to render assistance to the Commissioner, and Ext.P5 report and Ext.P6 plan were filed in the suit.

(iii) In the meantime, the defendants filed their written statement contending that the property belongs to Velliyode Juma Masjid Palli Committee.

(iv) Aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P6, the petitioners filed IA No.750/2019 to set aside the report and plan.

But, the application was dismissed.

(v) The petitioners also filed IA No.2/2020 to amend the survey number stated in the plaint as 29/1A1 and 29/1A2 instead of Re-Sy No.30. The said application was also dismissed.

(vi) Thereafter, the petitioners filed IA No.22/2021 to remit the commission report and plan. Again, the court below dismissed the said application.

(vii) The petitioners challenged the orders in IA Nos.2/2020 and 22/2021 before this Court by filing OP(C) No.136/2022. This Court by Ext.P7 judgment partly allowed the original petition by permitting the petitioners to file a fresh application for the purpose of identifying the plaint schedule property based on the title deed descriptions and old survey plan and resurvey number in relation to the old survey plan. The petitioners were also granted leave to file an application to amend the pleadings after getting the new commission report.

(viii) Based on Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioners filed IA No.27/2022 (Ext.P8) to appoint a Commissioner. As Ext.P8 was not considered, the petitioners filed IA.

No.28/2022 (Ext.P9) to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, who has experience on the civil side. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P10 order, dismissed Ext.P9 application. Ext.P10 is erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.P.A.Augustine, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 22 to 30. In view of the order I propose to pass and considering the fact that only the respondents 22 to 30 are the contesting respondents, I dispense with notice to the respondents 1 to 21.

4. The point is whether there is any error or illegality in Ext.P10 order passed by the court below. 5. The court below, on the application of the petitioners, had permitted an exparte Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property, who filed Ext.P2 report and Ext.P3 plan. Subsequently, at the request of the respondents 22 to 30, Exts.P2 and P3 were remitted back. The Advocate Commissioner by Ext.P4 report, requested the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor, which was allowed. Consequently, Ext.P5 report and Ext.P6 plan were placed on record.

6. Then the petitioners filed IA No.750/2019 to set aside Exs.P5 and P6. However, the application was dismissed.

7. In the meantime, the respondents had filed a written statement denying the assertion that the property belongs to the petitioners. They contended that the property belongs to the Velliyode Juma Masjid Palli Committee.

8. Immediately, the petitioners filed IA. No.2/2020, seeking leave to amend the plaint by substituting the resurvey number in the plaint. The said application was also dismissed.

9. Later, the petitioners filed IA. No.22/2021 to remit Exts.P5 and P6 to the Advocate Commissioner, which was also dismissed.

10. It was