#Advocate Commissioner

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a delay in seeking an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is not fatal if the necessity arises post-cross-examination, provided the purpose is localization rather than evidence gathering. This clarifies the scope of judicial discretion in procedural timelines for property disputes.

The Madras High Court held that courts must proceed suo motu to pass final decrees in partition suits under CPC Order XX Rule 18, eliminating the need for a separate application. Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for division is lawful and does not prejudice the right to appeal the final decree.

Kerala High Court clarifies that Rent Control Courts must not use Advocate Commissioner appointments to adjudicate title disputes when tenants deny landlord's title under Section 11 proviso.