The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the report of the commission appointed under Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code is merely evidence and does not have the status of a decision or adjudication.

1. This petition under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the defendant in O.S. No. 25 of 1988. Upon an application by plaintiff who is the respondent to this petition a commission was appointed under Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for the purpose of measuring and demarcating the property in the suit. The commission visited the property on 25-6-1989 and filed his report with a plan, on 30-1-1990. The defendant filed LA. No. 2893 of 1990 and prayed that the report of the commissioner and the plan, be set aside. The learned Munsiff, Kayamkulam, dismissed the application. The order of dismissal of LA. No. 2893 of 1990 is impugned by the defendant.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly as under:

O.S. No. 25 of 1988 is for fixation of boundary between the properties in schedule A and B which belong respectively to the plaintiff and the defendant. The evidence of the Commissioner and the surveyor was led in the application. The property in schedule A consists of survey No. 545/7 and 547/8-A and the property in schedule B consists of survey Nos. 547/8,545/7 and 544/9- A. The main grievance of the defendant is that the plan given by the commissioner does not give the check lines where the boundary bends at one place. According to the defendant, the commissioner's report is contrary to the facts, for two reasons:

a ) The commissioner has assumed in his report that the plaint A Schedule property includes the Orange shaded portion which has been acquired for a public road. According to the defendant the plaintiffs property of 29 cents must exclude the two cents of property since acquired for the road.

b) The commissioner has not shown in his report the existence of roads to the north and east of the plaintiffs property.

3. The learned judge considered the evidence. He accepted the explanation of the Commissioner that notwithstanding absence of check lines in the plan, the schedule A property includes the orange and red portions acquired for the road. He rejected the application.

4. In view of the facts of this case and arguments advanced by counsel, two questions arise for consideration:

(i) Does the rejection by the Munsiff, of the application to set aside the report of the Commissioner appointed under Rule 9 of Order 26 of the Code constitute "any case which has been decided by any court", within the meaning of sub-section (1) of S.115 of the Code?

(ii) Did the learned Munsiff in making the impugned order, exercise jurisdiction not vested in him by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or acted in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity?

5. The High Court's power to revise the orders of subordinate courts is circumscribed by the limitations contained in S.115 of the Code. The limitations relating to jurisdictional errors contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section(1) of S.115 attract frequent application. However, the Revisional jurisdiction under S.115 of the Code can be invoked only in "any case which has been decided" by the subordinate court.

These words circumscribe and limit the Revisional jurisdiction in a fundamental way. If the order sought to be revised does not "decide" "a case" the High Court does not possess the power to revise such orders.

6. In every case in which the High Court's power of Revision is invoked the fundamental question is: Does the order of the subordinate court decider case? What is the content of the expression "any case which has been decided"? Does the word "case" mean the whole suit or proceedings? Or does it also apply to a part of the proceedings? Must the order dispose off the entire proceedings? What must the order of the subordinate court do, in order to constitute "any case which has been decided?" These questions have been answered by the Supreme Court:

(i) The expression "case is a word of comprehensive import embracing all civil proceedings, other than suits.

(ii) "