delay the disposal of the case. Merely because an application has been filed belatedly for appointment of a commissioner which required for proper adjudication of the case alone is not sufficient to dismiss the application. If the court is satisfied that such a plan and report is required for proper adjudication of the case, the delay can be condoned on payment of cost as compensation to the other side for the inconvenience caused on account of the delay. Considering the circumstances and also the nature of allegations made regarding the conduct of the case by the earlier counsel, this court feels that an opportunity ought to be given by the court below to the petitioner to take out a commission to fix boundary of the property with the help of the village officer on the basis of title, so as to enable the court to pass proper decree in this case. But the latches on the part of the petitioner which caused inconvenience on the other side could have been compensated by payment of reasonable cost as evidence in this case is closed and only when it was posted for hearing that such an application has been filed. So under such circumstances, this court feels that the order passed by the court below evidenced by Ext.P4 dismissing the application for appointment of commission can be set aside on condition that the petitioner shall pay cost of 10,000/-, out₹ of which 7,500/- be paid to the counsel for the first respondent before₹ this court, who alone is opposing the application and the balance amount of 2,500/- be paid to the Kerala State Mediation and₹
