Advocates Con missioners, who were examined ls;p'/V.5 and PW.6 in O.S.l'lo 813 of 1990, an objection was taken for marking the same as; he said witnesses were alive. Thr:refore, the present Interlo :utory Application was filed for su I rroning the said two Advoc,rte Commissioners and the same wits; allowed by the trial Court solely on the ground that the depos tions in an earlier suit canr ot be marked unless and until the rleporrents of the earlier Ce positions were not alive. A per.ur;al of the documents sou lht to be marked by the plaintiff shr>w:; that in the earlier r( und of litigation filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff f(,r perpetual injunction in respect cF the very same subject property, the above named Advor:att:s were appointed as Ac vocates Commissioners, one for noting oown the physical featur€ s of the suit property and another r.o demarcate and locate thr suit schedule property. The se ic l,dvocate Commissioners filed their respective reports bef,tre t.he trial Court and tte/ were examined as pW.5 and )W.6. The depositions of tl re said two witnesses would show that: they were cross-examined at length with regard to the Cornnrissioner reports filed by :hem. The trial Court has failed to:;ee that with regard to the Commissioner reports which were alr,:ady marked in the earlier str it, the witnesses were cross-exam irre,l at length
