LAWS(KER)-2009-12-76

SAROJINI Vs. KARTHIYANI AMMA

Decided On December 07, 2009
SAROJINI Appellant
V/S
KARTHIYANI AMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs:

(2.) Petitioner is the 2nd plaintiff in OS No. 1318 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit is for fixation of boundary, and the respondents are the defendants. On the application moved by the plaintiff, an Advocate Commissioner deputed by the Court measured out the property with the assistance of the surveyor and filed a report and plan. Plaintiff, raising objections to that report, sought for setting it aside by filing Ext. P6 application. In the enquiry on that application, the Commissioner and also the surveyor were examined. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed Ext. P6 application for setting aside the report and plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. A commission report is after all a piece of evidence, the merit and value of which has to be appreciated with reference to the other materials to be tendered in the case. Whatever be the objections canvassed by the petitioner to the commission report and plan, any order passed by the Trial Court as to whether the report has to be accepted or set aside or remitted for fresh consideration for further clarification cannot be challenged before this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction unless it is shown the order passed thereof suffered from such infirmity which if not corrected will result in grave injustice. Normally any order passed over a commission report is a matter to be considered with reference to the merit of the decision to be rendered in the suit or proceeding by the Court. If at all the petitioner has any objection to the report and plan, such challenges can be canvassed in the appeal, in case, any adverse decision is rendered against the petitioner in the suit after a full fledged trial. A party to the proceedings or suit cannot impeach the correctness of the findings entered by the Court below on the merit of the commission report before this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction subject to the exception indicated above as any enquiry thereof and finding entered is likely to cause prejudice, and more so, affect the fair trial of the suit. Perusing the impugned order with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel, I find no ground has been made out for interfering with the order in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court. I find that the challenges canvassed in the writ petition against the order of the Court below negativing the objections raised to the commission report and plan by the commissioner cannot be entertained.