Judgment :- 1. In this Civil Revision Petition on behalf of the plaintiffs petitioners, Mr. Krishnan Nair learned counsel challenges the directions given by the learned Subordinate Judge of Quilon in his order dated 24th March, 1965 in O. S.56/62 relating to the remuneration payable to the commissioner appointed in the suit. 2. The suit itself is one for partition. The plaintiffs have been declared entitled to get 8/13 shares, and defendants to 5/12 shares. The actual allotment and separate possession of the shares decreed to the plaintiffs is being worked out. For that purpose a commissioner has been appointed; and from the order of the lower court it is seen that initially the batta of the commissioner was fixed at Rs. 150/ -which appears to have been paid in the first instance by the plaintiffs. The Commisioner has made a request to the lower court for sanctioning additional remuneration, and it is seen that the lower court has passed the order which is now under attack, stating that in its view the commissioner was appointed as early as 1960 and the matter has been stayed for a long time in view of the directions of this court. But there is one aspect which the lower court has taken into account, in giving the directions which will be referred to immediately, namely the fact that the value of the properties come to more than one lakh of rupees. On this basis the lower court has directed the plaintiffs to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 850 towards the remuneration of the commissioner. The lower court has later on stated in its order that the question of fixing the remuneration of the commissioner will be decided after accepting the report of the commissioner. 3. Two contentions have been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely (a) that no opportunity was given to the plaintiffs to place their view points before the lower court in the matter of fixing the remuneration payable to the commissioner, and (b) that the lower court, in giving the directions which are under attack, has been largely or substantially influenced by the fact that the value of the properties in respect of which the commissioner did the work comes to more than a lakh of rupees. 4. On behalf of the commissioner, who is the respondent herein, Mr. 4. On behalf of the commissioner, who is the respondent herein, Mr. K. T. Thomas learned counsel pointed out that it was purely an interim direction that has been given by the lower court at this stage, and that inasmuch as the lower court has stated in the order that the final remuneration will be decided later on, the question of giving any opportunity to the petitioners to raise objection to the actual amount that is to be fixed as remuneration, does not arise at this stage. Obviously the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent appears to be that it is only when final directions are being given regarding the remuneration of the commissioner that the plaintiffs should be given opportunity to place their view points. 5. So far as the second aspect is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that though the lower court has referred to the fact that the value of the properties come to more than a lakh of rupees, that is not the sole circumstance taken into account by the lower court in directing the petitioners to pay an additional sum of Rs. 850 as remuneration to the commissioner. In this connection the learned counsel pointed out that the lower court has referred to the fact that in giving the directions, the lower court starts by stating "In view of the work done by the commissioner". Therefore, the learned counsel pointed out that the lower court must have had due regard to the nature of the work done by the commissioner as well as the time spent by him in completing the work, which are all evident from the statements furnished by the commissioner. 6. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in my opinion, it would have been very desirable if the lower court, even if the present order is considered to be an interim order, had given an opportunity to the petitioners to place their view points. Though at this stage no elaborate consideration may be necessary, nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the plaintiffs who are being directed to pay the additional remuneration to the commissioner at this stage, as I have already mentioned, the lower court would have been well advised in having given an opportunity to them in that regard. Though at this stage no elaborate consideration may be necessary, nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the plaintiffs who are being directed to pay the additional remuneration to the commissioner at this stage, as I have already mentioned, the lower court would have been well advised in having given an opportunity to them in that regard. But the more serious contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as I have already indicated, is that instead of the lower court fixing any additional remuneration to the commissioner as an interim measure, having due regard to the nature of the work, the volume of the work done by the commissioner as well as the time spent by the commissioner in completing the work, the only circumstance that has weighed with the lower court is the fact that the value of the properties come to more than a lakh of rupees. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that such an approach in the matter of fixing the remuneration of the commissioner has not been adopted by the lower court and should not be adopted, because the proper test to be applied for fixing the remuneration will be having due regard to the nature of the work, the volume of work and the time spent by the commissioner for completing the work. The learned counsel also drew my attention to an unreported decision of my learned brother Joseph, J., in C. R. P. 684/1963 dated 1st November, 1963, wherein the learned judge, after referring to the practice obtaining in the Malabar area, on the basis of the judgment of Happel J. of the Madras High Court in C. R. P.Nos. 3 and 4 of 1942, has ultimately held that the fixation of the remuneration of the commissioner solely on the basis of the value of improvements found which was the case before the learned judge in that case is certainly not a wholesome rule. The learned judge has also observed that in fixing the remuneration payable to the commissioner the basis that should be considered is the nature of the work done by the commissioner, the volume of work turned out by him, and the time spent by him, having due regard to the other material circumstances that may be placed by the parties before the court. 7. 7. In the present case the question is as to whether the lower court has had regard to the aspects adverted to above. No doubt the lower court starts the order by stating "In view of the work done by the commissioner...". But I do not find any reference in the order to the nature and volume of the work done by the commissioner and the time taken by him for completing the work; nor is there any reference to the statements which appear to have been filed on behalf of the commissioner. The lower court has certainly adverted to the fact that one of the circumstances which had operated in its mind for fixing the additional remuneration of Rs. 850 to the commissioner, is the fact that the value of the properties comes to more than a lakh of rupees. Such an approach is certainly not in accordance with the decision of Joseph, J., referred to above. There is also an indication in R.145 of the Civil Rules of Practice as to how exactly the remuneration is to be fixed. The material part of the said rule dealing with this aspect clearly shows that the "commissioner shall be paid his fees as stated in the order of appointment or such other additional sum as may be allowed by the court, regard being had to the nature of the work". The principle enunciated above, that the additional remuneration is to be fixed having due regard to the nature of the work, is quite consistent with the principle laid down by Joseph, J., in the decision referred to above. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the commissioner has filed detailed statements regarding the nature of the work done by him, the time spent by him on the work, as well as the volume of work, and all these matters must have been taken into account by the lower court in giving the directions under attack. If certainly the lower court had adverted to at least the statements of the commissioner and stated that the statements contain all the particulars and if it had also stated that the court is accepting them for the present, this court would not have normally interfered with the directions given in its order. If certainly the lower court had adverted to at least the statements of the commissioner and stated that the statements contain all the particulars and if it had also stated that the court is accepting them for the present, this court would not have normally interfered with the directions given in its order. But in the absence of any such indication and in view of the fact that the only aspect, so to say, which has been emphasised by the lower court in its order under attack relates to the value of the. properties coming to more than a lakh of rupees, which basis, as I mentioned already, cannot be accepted, the only course open to this court is to set aside the order of the lower court dated 24th March, 1965. The commissioner will be entitled to file a detailed statement giving particulars of the nature of work done by him, the time spent by him on the work, as well as the various other circumstances, which, in his opinion, would justify the claim made by him. After such a statement is filed by the commissioner, the lower court will give an opportunity to the parties concerned to place their view points, if any, and after hearing all parties, it will fix an additional remuneration that may have to be paid by the parties at this stage. 9. The result is that the order of the lower court under attack will stand set aside, and the application filed by the commissioner for additional batta will be taken up and disposed of by the lower court in the light of the observations and direction contained in this order. There will be no order as to costs in this court.