B. SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Advocate Commissioner challenge the order setting aside his report filed in a suit and appointing another to execute the warrant of appointment

(2.) The petitioner is the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the final decree proceedings for partition in O.S. No. 697 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Alappuzha. The Advocate Commissioner filed an interim report in the proceedings to the effect that the plaint schedule property could not be identified with reference to the documents of title relied on by the parties. The plaintiff thereupon filed an application to appoint another Advocate Commissioner to execute the warrant of appointment on the premise that the interim report deserved to be set aside. The court below allowed the application and appointed another Advocate Commissioner who has since filed a detailed report and survey plan after conducting local inspection with notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard before another Advocate Commissioner was appointed to complete the task thereby brushing aside his interim report. The petitioner contends that he should have been afforded an opportunity to explain his stand and that the order appointing another Advocate Commissioner is uncalled for and liable to be set aside.

(3.) An Advocate Commissioner can be appointed under Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) generally for the following purposes: