JUDGMENT Shiva Reddy and Chandra Reddi were two brothers, Shiva Reddy died, leaving behind him his son Damodar Reddy. When he was aged 19 years, Damodar Reddy filed a suit being O.S. No. 104/1/1358 Fasli, in the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against his paternal uncle, Ranga Reddy, and his sons for partition of the suit schedule lands. The suit was presented on 06-06-1947. Two months and a week thereafter, the country got independence and it was partitioned. About a decade thereafter, the State in which the suit was filed; was trifurcated. Few decades thence the District in which the suit was pending, was bifurcated. The original plaintiff and the 1st defendant died. Even after six decades, the properties remained unpartitioned. It would tell, either upon the perseverance of the parties, or defect in the system, or partly both. 2. O.S. No. 104/1/1358 Fasli was renumbered as O.S. No. 27/1 of 1955. A preliminary decree was passed in the year 1955. C.C.C.A. No. 3 of 1963 was filed before this Court against the preliminary decree. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court. Thereafter, the suit was re-numbered as O.S. No. 50 of 1965. After remand, a preliminary decree was passed on 11-08-1970. After the preliminary decree became final, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, the petitioners herein, initiated final decree proceedings. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court, somewhere in the year 1985. He submitted a report. Not satisfied with the report, and certain steps taken by the Commissioner, the respondents insisted appointment of another Commissioner. Accordingly, a second Commissioner was appointed in June 1987. It took one-and-half decades for the Commissioner, to submit the report, dividing the property into two equal shares, in terms of the preliminary decree. The 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.12 of 2004, for summoning the Commissioner for cross-examination. Identical application, being I.A.No.84 of 2003, was also filed by some of the other respondents. The petitioners opposed the application. Through order dated 28-02-2006, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. 3. Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the effort of the respondents in proposing to cross-examine the Commissioner is only to protract the proceedings and that there are no bona fides on their part. Through order dated 28-02-2006, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. 3. Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the effort of the respondents in proposing to cross-examine the Commissioner is only to protract the proceedings and that there are no bona fides on their part. He contends that the report submitted by the Commissioner is a material, which the Court can take into account, while passing the final decree, and if the respondents have any objection to it, they can certainly put forward the same. He submits that the respondents did not co-operate with the Commissioner, in spite of his best efforts, and ultimately, when the report is submitted, it is being attacked on non-existent and dubious grounds. 4. Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel, appeared for the 1st respondent and Sri Murali Narayan Bung, for respondent No.4, submit that there are serious lapses and inconsistencies in the report submitted by the Commissioner, and that the same can be clarified, if only the Commissioner is examined as a witness. They point out that much delay took place at the hands of the Commissioner, and the respondents cannot be blamed for it. Submissions, touching on merits have also been made. None appeared for respondents 2 and 3. 5. Several decades after the suit came to be filed, it is at the stage of final decree proceedings. Two generations have passed, ever since the suit was instituted. The adjudication of the suit itself did not present much of a problem. Plaintiff on the one hand, and the defendants on the other hand represented two branches of the family. Much controversy was, as to the properties that are available for partition with the passing of preliminary decree, this also stood resolved. 6. Appointment of a Commissioner under Rule 13 of Order 26 read with Rule 18(2) of Order 20 C.P.C., is a step, in the direction of providing assistance to the Court, in passing the final decree. The basic obligation to divide the properties and allot them to the sharers, in accordance with the preliminary decree rests with the Court. Since the process may involve inspection of properties, assessment of their values etc., Commissioners are appointed to undertake such a work, on behalf of the Court. 7. The basic obligation to divide the properties and allot them to the sharers, in accordance with the preliminary decree rests with the Court. Since the process may involve inspection of properties, assessment of their values etc., Commissioners are appointed to undertake such a work, on behalf of the Court. 7. Rule 18(2) of Order 20 mandates that where the Court cannot partition or spread (sic. Separate) the properties, straightaway, based upon a preliminary decree, and it finds that further enquiry is needed, it shall pass a final decree and issue further directions in the matter. In other words, in case, where the Court can find itself convenient to; (a) declare the shares of the parties, (b) ascertain the properties, available for partition, (c) divide them into shares, and (d) allot them to the respective sharers, it can straightaway proceed to dispose of the partition suit, through a single decree. However, if a further exercise is to be undertaken in the matter of division of the properties into parts, and allotment of the shares, a preliminary decree has to be passed, covering the first two aspects, referred to above, and relegating the other two, to a later stage, culminating in a final decree. Rule 18(2), by itself, does not indicate the nature of steps to be taken in final decree proceedings. Much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. Rules 13 and 14 of Order 26 C.P.C., provide for issuance of commissions, to divide the properties into requisite parts and the allotment of shares to the parties. The Rules read as under: Rule 13: Commission to make partition of immovable property. Where a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, the Court may, in any case not provided for by Section 54, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit to make the partition or separation according to the rights as declared in such decree. Rule 14: Procedure of Commissioner. (1) The Commissioner shall, after such inquiry as may be necessary, divide the property into as many shares as may be directed by the order under which the commission was issued, and shall allot such shares to the parties, and may, if authorized thereto by the said order, award sums to be paid for the purpose of equalizing the value of the shares. (2) The Commissioner shall then prepare and sign a report or the Commissioners (where the commission was issued to more than one person and they cannot agree) shall prepare and sign separate reports appointing the share of each party and distinguishing each share (if so directed by the said order) by metes and bounds. Such report or reports shall be annexed to the commission and transmitted to the Court; and the Court, after hearing any objections which the parties may make to the report or reports, shall confirm, vary or set aside the same. (3) Where the Court confirms or varies the report or reports it shall pass a decree in accordance with the same as confirmed or varied; but where the Court sets aside the report or reports it shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit". 9. Order 26 contemplates appointment of Commissioners for several purposes, such as commissions to examine witnesses (Rules 1 to 8), commissions for local investigations (Rules 9 and 10), commissions for scientific investigation for sale of movable property (Rules 10A, 108 and 10C), commissions to examine accounts (Rules 11 and 12), commissions to make partitions (Rules 13 and 14). Of the various categories of Commissioners, those appointed for local inspection are made liable to be examined as witnesses. Rule 10(2) reads as under: "O. 26 Rule 10(2) : Report and depositions to be evidence in suit: The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation." 10. The same procedure is extended to the commission, issued for scientific investigations, under Rule 10-A. Sub-rule (2) thereof, reads thus, Rule 10-A(2): "The provisions of Rule 10 of this Order shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under Rule 9". The same procedure is extended to the commission, issued for scientific investigations, under Rule 10-A. Sub-rule (2) thereof, reads thus, Rule 10-A(2): "The provisions of Rule 10 of this Order shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule as they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under Rule 9". Rule 10-B, which deals with the appointment of Commissioners for performance of ministerial act, contains identical provision. 11. On account of nature of duties assigned to the other Commissioners, they are not made liable to be examined as witnesses. The distinction maintained by the Legislature is not without significance. 12. As regards the commissions issued for partition, it must be recognized, that in the ultimate analysis the Commissioner discharges the function of the Court itself. It is only as a matter of convenience, that the work is entrusted to him. Obviously, by treating him as Officer of Court, the Legislature did not subject him to be examined a witness. 13. Further, the report submitted by a Commissioner is not going to be the final word, on the subject. At the most, he can indicate that the property can be divided and that the shares can be allotted in a particular manner. It is always open to the parties concerned, to put forward their objections or make suggestions at variance with, what is indicated, in the report of the Commissioner. Ultimately, it is for the Court to pass the final decree; taking into account, the report of the Commissioner, and the objections of the parties. Subjecting the Commissioner to cross-examination as a witness, in such matters, apart from not being provided for under the Law, does not advance the purpose, for which he was appointed. The reason is that, unlike in the case of reporting the physical features, or undertaking scientific investigation, the Commissioner does not vouch for any particular state of affairs. While in the former case, it is a finding based upon observations; in the latter, it is an opinion rendered by him. Further, the former is suggestive and in the latter, the Commissioner is accountable for the findings arrived at by him. There exists a discernible difference between the two, notwithstanding the fact that both are subject to acceptance or rejection, by the Court. 14. Further, the former is suggestive and in the latter, the Commissioner is accountable for the findings arrived at by him. There exists a discernible difference between the two, notwithstanding the fact that both are subject to acceptance or rejection, by the Court. 14. It can be said without fear of contradiction, that howsoever well-versed and perfect, a Commissioner may be, he cannot bring about division of properties or allotment of shares with mathematical precision, and to the satisfaction of one and all. Notwithstanding such deficiencies, the report submitted by the Commissioner in the final decree proceedings will constitute valuable material for beginning the exercise of division and allotment. The parties would be free to put forward their contentions, and ultimately it is for the Court, to pass a final decree, in such a way, as to bring about a just and equitable partition of the properties. Further, even if anybody is aggrieved by the partition, he can canvass his grievance before an Appellate Court. Viewed from any angle, subjecting the Commissioner to cross-examination, would not serve any purpose, in such matters. 15. A further dimension of the matter is, that, if there exists any complications in bringing about a final partition, the Court can consider the feasibility of more final decrees than one (SCC AIR 1958 AP 520). The properties, which can be divided without much of controversy, can be partitioned and allotted to the parties, and such of the properties, where there exists serious disputes or where the Court feels that a detailed and meticulous exercise is to be undertaken, can be dealt with, under a separate final decree. The only thing, which must be kept in mind is, that the final decree passed as regards certain items of property, must be complete in all respects, and nothing must be left to be dealt with, at a later point of time. 16. In the instant case, the grievance of the respondents is mostly in relation to the issuance of notices to the parties and is not acceding to the request, for appointment of a Surveyor. Even assuming that there is an iota of truth in such allegations, it cannot be a basis for summoning the Commissioner as a witness or to delay the final decree proceedings any further. Even assuming that there is an iota of truth in such allegations, it cannot be a basis for summoning the Commissioner as a witness or to delay the final decree proceedings any further. If the respondents, or for that matter, the petitioners are of the view that an item of property, which is not the subject-matter of the preliminary decree, was included, or an item which formed part of it, was excluded, they can certainly bring it to the notice of the trial Court. The Court as well as the parties must however realize that it is impossible to divide properties with mathematical precision. The delay in such matters would have its own adverse impact. Already two generations of persons were denied the benefit of exclusive ownership of the properties, which they were otherwise entitled to. If the properties are divided and the shares are allotted, the persons would be in a position to enjoy the allotted property in a proper and effective manner. Uncertainty in this regard, would render the very entitlement otiose. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. 18. Having regard to the special circumstances obtaining in this case, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court must be required to undertake certain steps, within a time frame. Accordingly it directed that, (a) The Trial Court shall receive any objections or suggestions, from the parties, within fifteen days from the 125 date of receipt of a copy of this order, vis-a-vis the report submitted by the Commissioner. (b) Since the preliminary decree has become final, it shall not entertain any objection, as to the inclusion or exclusion of properties in the preliminary decree, at this stage. (c) The Trial Court shall proceed to pass final decree within one month from the last date of receiving the objections and suggestions. It shall endeavour to pass a final decree, as regards all the properties included in the schedule to the preliminary decree. (d) However, in case, the Trial Court finds any insurmountable difficulty in partitioning any item of property, it shall exclude the same from the final decree, duly stating the reasons there for. In such an event, the steps for passing final decree, in respect of the left over items of property, shall also be commenced and concluded within three months thereafter. In such an event, the steps for passing final decree, in respect of the left over items of property, shall also be commenced and concluded within three months thereafter. (e) Any deviation from the time schedule, referred to above, shall be treated as violation of the directions issued by this Court, and as and when they are brought to the notice of this Court, they shall entail in corresponding action. (f) There shall be no order as to costs