Judgment : 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: (i) To examine witnesses. (ii) For local investigation. (iii) For scientific investigation, performance of ministerial act and sale of movable property. (iv) To examine accounts and (v) To make partition. The Advocate Commissioner is expected to adopt an impartial stand and shall behave in such an exemplary manner that he gives no room for any allegation of bias from any one of the litigating parties. The report of the Advocate Commissioner shall be evidence in the suit in which it is filed (without him being even examined) and shall form part of the record under Order XXVI Rule 10 (2) of the CPC. The court if dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Advocate Commissioner for any reason can direct such further enquiry to be made as it thinks fit under Order XXVI Rule 10 (3) of the CPC. The court if dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Advocate Commissioner for any reason can direct such further enquiry to be made as it thinks fit under Order XXVI Rule 10 (3) of the CPC. The court is also empowered to set aside the report and issue commission afresh by deputing another Advocate to discharge the function under Order XXVI Rule 14(3) of the CPC. 4. The duty of the Advocate Commissioner is only to record evidence and give a vivid report of the true state of affairs in order to aid the court to have a proper assessment of the factual matrix. The Advocate Commissioner is undoubtedly entitled to his remuneration for the work hitherto done whether or not his report is accepted, modified or set aside by the court eventually in the proceedings. The Advocate Commissioner is thus an officer of the court who has no interest what so ever in the subject matter of the litigation or in the person who would ultimately win the cause. The Advocate Commissioner should not be prestige conscious about his report and must remain unruffled even if his report filed after laborious work is set aside by the court for trivial reasons. It is for the parties to the lis to pursue the case and it is for the court to decide about the acceptability or otherwise of the report of the Advocate Commissioner in the proceedings. The parties may or may not examine the author of the report while testing its acceptability and the Advocate Commissioner cannot insist on himself being examined. The Advocate Commissioner has no right to be heard before his report is set aside and is not also a person aggrieved by the order appointing another to execute the warrant of appointment. The Original Petition is rejected in limine.