M.P. DHINAKAR Vs. G. RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner / defendant, would pyramid his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The earlier report of the Commissioner ought not to have been set aside by the Lower Court without even examining the Commissioner and also considering all aspects of the matter. The Court had full authority to collect some more particulars through the same Commissioner by any further directions and thereafter the Court could take a decision, but instead of doing it, the Court wrongly set aside the report of the Commissioner.

(3.) AS per the Advocate for the plaintiff, the Commissioner was not justified in giving virtually a verdict as though there was encroachment by the plaintiff. Even the Commissioner in Paragraph No.1 of his report, observed the age of the wall and such a finding also was beyond his competence; whereupon the Lower Court simply set aside the order correctly warranting no interference in revision.