location of the properties and the location of the way as described in the plaint has to be found out in order to ascertain as to whether there exists any pathway as claimed by the plaintiffs as C and D schedule and whether that passes through the properties of the defendants. So in order to ascertain the same, it is necessary that a proper plan has to be obtained with measurements of existence of the pathway shown as C and D schedule and the commissioner also can consider as to whether that tallies with the rough sketch produced by him. If the defendants file a work memo to the commissioner to find out the pathway shown by the commissioner in Ext.P3, that also can be considered by the commissioner. If there are any discrepancies in the plan that is going to be drawn and the way already shown in the sketch plan produced along with Ext.P3, that fact also can be shown by the commissioner in the plan with the help of a surveyor. So in order to identify the property, the location of the pathway has to be precisely located with measurement so as to identify the same later if any dispute arose between the parties in respect of that pathway on the basis of the decree if any to be passed ultimately in favour of the plaintiffs. So under such circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in allowing the application for identifying plaint C and D schedule pathway with the help of a surveyor. It is made clear that the surveyor need not measure plaint A and B
