J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.343 of 2009 of Principal Munsiff's Court, Palakkad. That is a suit for fixation of boundary of plaint schedule items over which petitioner claims title and possession as per partition deed of the year, 1954. In the course of proceeding, learned Munsiff appointed an Advocate Commissioner to submit report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner submitted report and plan after measurement of properties with reference to the relevant documents, B.T.R and F.M.B. Petitioner filed I.A.No.390 of 2012 to set aside the report and plan. That application was dismissed by Ext.P6, order dated 07.12.2012. Hence the challenge to Ext.P6, order.

2. It is contended that the Advocate Commissioner has not properly measured the property as per partition deed of the year, 1954 or as per measurements given in the plaint schedule. Advocate Commissioner has concluded that petitioner has trespassed into an extent of 100 sq. links belonging to the respondents which is factually not correct. Learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances, Exts. C1 & C1 (a) and C2 are are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for respondents has submitted that measurement