J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved and dissatisfied with Ext.P6 order passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Mannarkkad, in I.A.No.884/2022 in O.S.No.30/2018, the plaintiff in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.

2. The antecedent facts leading to Ext.P6 order, in a narrow compass, are: the petitioner has filed the suit against the respondents for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The respondents have resisted the suit by Ext.P2 written statement. An Advocate Commissioner had inspected the property and has filed Ext.P3 report. Even though the petitioner wanted to file an application to remit the report, due to the pandemic he was prevented from filing the application. He is an Adivasi. Now, the petitioner filed I.A.No.884/2022 (Ext.P4) to remit the commission report. The same was opposed by the respondents by Ext.P5 objection. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, has rejected Ext.P4. Ext.P6 is palpably wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri. V.A.Johnson (Varikkappallil), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the respon