JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.2.2022 in IA No.3/2021 in OS No.280/2017 (Ext P6) of the Court of the Munsiff, Chengannur.

2. The skeletal facts, relevant for the determination of the original petition are: the petitioners are the additional plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the above suit, filed against the respondents, for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The respondents have filed Ext P2 written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. The court below has passed Ext P3 ad-interim order of injunction. Subsequently, Ext P3 order was modified by Ext P4. The respondents have disputed the identity and extent of the property. Therefore, the petitioners had filed Ext P5 application under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure , to depute an Advocate Commissioner to elucidate the matters mentioned in the application. The respondents have not opposed the application. Nonetheless, the court below, by the impugned Ext P6 order, has dismissed Ext P5 application. Ext P6 is erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.Arun Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.B.Renjithkumar, the learned