only be passed after final adjudication of the suit. Relying on the above decisions, learned Single Judge has set aside the order ignoring the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendranath Parida Vs. Purnananda Parida and others, reported in AIR 1988 Ori 248 relied on by learned counsel for the plaintiffappellant, wherein this Court has held that when the controversy is as to identification, location or measurement of the land or premise or object, local investigation should be done at an early stage so that the parties can be aware of the report of the commissioner and can go to trial with all preparedness. 7. The party against whom, a report might have given may choose an evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, further it is in the said case observed that ordinarily in such type of cases, local investigation should not have been deferred after closure of the evidence. Placing reliance on the said decision, having regard to the pleading of the parties learned trial Judge is right in allowing appointment of survey knowing commissioner. The same should not have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge applying various decisions referred to supra and the decision in 2006 (II) OLR 43 which decision has no application to the fact situation.”
