JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.278/2017 on the file of the Principle Munsiff-I, Kozhikode is the petitioner herein.

2. When the case was listed for trail, the petitioner filed an application for remitting a Commissioner Report, together with a petition to condone delay. The trial court rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, rejected the petition for remitting the Commissioner Report as per Exts.P12 and P13 orders, respectively.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents stoutly objected the petition contending that the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the matter endlessly.

5. Having considered the grounds raised in the petition and the reasons stated in Ext.P12 order passed by the trial court, I am of the view that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Ext.P13 order was passed solely on the ground that the petition for condoning the delay in submitting the application was dismissed by the Court. The law does not mandate that the petition for setting aside or remitting back a Commissioner Report has to be filed within a particular period.

6.