JUDGMENT : 1. This original petition (civil) is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial court in Ext. P13 and P14 dated 03.01.2020. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner before the trial court is that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 525/2013 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, for various reliefs. The defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement, and subsequently an application had been filed for appointing the commissioner. Accordingly, the commissioner is said to have surveyed the land with the assistance of a private surveyor and filed the report as per Ext.P5. Subsequently, both the plaintiff and the defendant had filed objections to the commissioner’s report for setting aside the same. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have filed an application for setting aside the commissioner’s report as per application Ext.P9 which came to be dismissed as per the order Ext.P13 dated 03.01.2020. 4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that out of the commissioner’s report, he also found some defects in the pleadings, hence, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for seeking amendment, which came to be dismissed on the same day as per Ext.P14. It is also submitted that on the same day the trial court also dismissed the very suit in O.S. No. 525/2013 by rejecting the adjournment sought by the plaintiff’s counsel on the ground of delay. It is a further case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed another I.A for restoring the original suit, which came to be allowed, and the suit was restored to the original file by the trial court by Ext.P15 order dated 18.07.2022. Subsequently, the order passed by the trial court on Exts.P13 and P14 has been challenged before this Court. 5. Having heard the arguments, on perusal of the records, especially the order challenging Exts.P13 and P14. The suit was dismissed on non-prosecution which came to be restored by the trial court on the request made by the counsel for the petitioner. However, the trial court cannot restore the order passed in I.A. as there is a bar under the law. Therefore, the plaintiff is before this Court. 6. The suit was dismissed on non-prosecution which came to be restored by the trial court on the request made by the counsel for the petitioner. However, the trial court cannot restore the order passed in I.A. as there is a bar under the law. Therefore, the plaintiff is before this Court. 6. It is submitted by the respondent counsel during his arguments that they are also aggrieved by the commissioner’s report as there is a defect in the sketch produced by the commissioner. Therefore, both the plaintiff and the defendants have filed objections to the commissioner’s report. Therefore the commissioner’s report was rejected and the first commissioner was appointed by the trial court. While doing so, the trial court dismissed the application I.A. 9 and Ext.P13. Hence the plaintiff before this Court. Likewise, the trial court also dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 7 of CPC , wherein it is also mentioned the application was filed only to attract the proceedings and there is no bona fide in the applications. But both the orders passed by the trial court reveals that it is a cryptic order and the orders are not passed on the merits of the case and it is also the fact that both the orders are passed by the trial court by dismissing the very suit for non-prosecution. Subsequently, once the suit was restored to the original file, it is also the duty of the trial court to consider the I.As on merits. But the order passed by the trial court is without any merits and only on the ground that it is delayed tactics, which cannot be sustainable, with the consent of both advocates the impugned orders are liable to be set aside with a direction to the trial court to dispose of both the IAs on merit while considering the counters filed by the defendant and also the argument addressed by the plaintiff counsel. 7. In the result, the original petition is allowed. The impugned order challenging Ext.P13 &14 dated 03.01.2020 is set aside. The applications filed by the plaintiff in Ext.P9 and P10 are hereby restored to the original file with a direction to dispose of the same after hearing both sides and dispose of in accordance with law.