JUDGMENT : K. NATARAJAN, J. This original petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant, challenging Ext.P7 order dated 09.04.2024 by the trial court for remitting back the commissioner report, and for filing separate plan in accordance with the measurements as per Ext.A1 partition deed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contented that the commissioner has not properly measured the property, therefore, the commissioner’s report should be set aside and a fresh commissioner required to be appointed for the purpose of taking measurements and producing fresh sketch, as per the fresh work memo produced by the parties. Whereas, the respondent also filed an application for remitting back the commissioner report, which was already filed by the commissioner as per Ext.P4(a), for want of some more clarification in the commissioner report. By common order, the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant, and allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and remitted the commissioner report back for further clarifications as per the order dated 09.04.2024, which is under challenge. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the commissioner did not properly verify the document and filed the report, therefore the report is almost supporting the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, the commissioner’s report shall be set aside, and a new commissioner shall be appointed. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order and contented that the case was already remitted twice by the High Court as well as the District Court, therefore, appointing the new commissioner will lead to further delay in disposing of the suit. Therefore, if there is any grievance, the petitioner can file a work memo before the court for the purpose of considering the work memo by the commissioner and file fresh report that is sufficient to dispose of the matter, and there is no need to interfering with the order. Hence, prayed for dismissing the same. 5. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. On perusal of the same, it is admitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1995, which was initially decreed, and in the appeal, the same was set aside and remitted. Hence, prayed for dismissing the same. 5. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. On perusal of the same, it is admitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1995, which was initially decreed, and in the appeal, the same was set aside and remitted. Once again the suit was dismissed by the trial court and in the appeal the district judge allowed the appeal and a decree was passed, which was challenged before this court by filing a second appeal by the defendant, wherein this court, while considering the second appeal in SA 243/2002, set aside the judgment and remitted the matter once again for a afresh consideration for appointing the commissioner and identifying the 'C' schedule property and pathway and dispose of the matter within nine months, vide judgment 08/07/2022. 6. After remitting back, the commissioner was appointed by the trial court. Accordingly, the commissioner submitted the report to the court on 08/03/2023 as Ext.P4 and the sketch was produced as Ext.P4(a). Once again the plaintiff filed an objection for remitting back with the request the court and the commissioner to verify the actual measurement of the pathway and also a road leading from south to north on the extent part of the A and B schedule property, which was not considered by the commissioner. Therefore, the matter required to remitting back for fresh consideration and accordingly, the trial court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and allowed the application whereas the petitioner objected to the commissioner’s report and set aside the entire commissioner report and appointed a fresh commissioner by the trial court. 7. On a perusal of the order passed by trial court, which reveals at para 14 as under; 14. Point No.3:- In view of the findings in the point No.1 and 2, the commission report and plan is remitted. In the result, IA 03/2023 is dismissed. IA02/2023 is allowed as follows; 1. The commission report and plan are remitted back to the earlier commissioner himself. Plaintiffs shall pay batta of Rs.5000/- to advocate commissioner and pay batta of Rs.3000/- to surveyor. 2. The plaintiffs and defendant are permitted to file work memo. They shall file the work memo within 7 days from today before the court. 3. The commission report and plan are remitted back to the earlier commissioner himself. Plaintiffs shall pay batta of Rs.5000/- to advocate commissioner and pay batta of Rs.3000/- to surveyor. 2. The plaintiffs and defendant are permitted to file work memo. They shall file the work memo within 7 days from today before the court. 3. The advocate commissioner and surveyor are directed to measure the whole properties as per the measurements, extent in cents and Ares and the boundaries shown in the Ext A1 partition deed. 4. The advocate commissioner and surveyor are directed to file separate plans in accordance with the measurement and extent in cents and Ares and the boundaries in the Ext A1 partition deed. 5. The advocate commissioner and surveyor are directed to figure out whether any land was acquired from the property of plaintiffs and defendant for the widening of the road at the western side on the basis of government records. 6.The advocate commissioner and surveyor are directed to figure out the exact width of the plaint C schedule property as existed at the time of the Ext.A1 partition deed and whether the compound wall is in the middle portion of the padipura of the tharavad house in the item no.3 of plaint A schedule property. 7. The advocate commissioner and surveyor are directed to inspect the properties and file report and plan before 18/05/2024, considering the time limit fixed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. 8. On careful reading of the direction issued by the trial court, the plaintiff and defendants are permitted to file a fresh work memo as per direction No.2, and as per direction No.4. The advocate commissioner and the surveyor are directed to file a separate plan in accordance with the measurements and extent in cents and Ares and the boundaries in Ext.A1 partition deed, and the remaining directions are also issued by the trial court to the commissioner to verify the spot and file a fresh report. 9. On a perusal of the very same report itself, it clearly reveals both parties can file fresh work memo to the commissioner and the plaintiff is also permitted to file work memo and the commissioner is directed to verify the spot and prepare the measurement in accordance with the partition deed relied by both parties. 9. On a perusal of the very same report itself, it clearly reveals both parties can file fresh work memo to the commissioner and the plaintiff is also permitted to file work memo and the commissioner is directed to verify the spot and prepare the measurement in accordance with the partition deed relied by both parties. Such being the case, even if a fresh commissioner is appointed he has to prepare a sketch and give a report afresh. Even if the matter is remitted, to the commissioner for appointment for production of the plan as well as the measurement of the property, it is nothing but one and the same. 10. Such being the case, the question of appointing a fresh commissioner, and setting aside the commissioner report is not required. On the other hand, the very commissioner along with the surveyor to prepared the plan and sketch in respect of the previous work memo. However, he has left out the measurements of the road existing on the western side of both properties passing through from north to south, and some spaces are left on the southern side of the property of the defendant. Therefore the commissioner is required to prepare a fresh measurement and a fresh sketch. 11. Such being the case, the order of the trial court remitting for fresh consideration by the commissioner do not call for any interference, and the purposes of the report remitting and appointing fresh commissioner are one and the same. The commissioner is required to prepare a fresh plan, and a fresh measurement in accordance with the Ext.A1 partition deed. Such being the case, the order under challenge do not call for any interference by this Court. 12. That apart, this Court in the second appeal directed the trial court to dispose of the matter within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. But, even after a lapse of three years, the matter is still pending. Hence, appointing the fresh commissioner will lead to further delay in disposing of the suit. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The trial court shall make an endeavor, and to see the commissioner shall submit the report as early as possible. The parties shall co- operate with the commissioner for filing the fresh/Additional work memo immediately before the court. Hence, appointing the fresh commissioner will lead to further delay in disposing of the suit. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The trial court shall make an endeavor, and to see the commissioner shall submit the report as early as possible. The parties shall co- operate with the commissioner for filing the fresh/Additional work memo immediately before the court. The trial court makes an endeavor to dispose of the matter as early as possible by keeping in mind the direction issued by the court in the second appeal.