Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN, J
Rajan S/o Neelakantan Illayath – Appellant
Versus
Mahesh S/o Parameswaran – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This original petition (civil) is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial court in Ext. P13 and P14 dated 03.01.2020.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner before the trial court is that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 525/2013 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, for various reliefs. The defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement, and subsequently an application had been filed for appointing the commissioner. Accordingly, the commissioner is said to have surveyed the land with the assistance of a private surveyor and filed the report as per Ext.P5. Subsequently, both the plaintiff and the defendant had filed objections to the commissioner’s report for setting aside the same. Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have filed an application for setting aside the commissioner’s report as per application Ext.P9 which came to be dismissed as per the order Ext.P13 dated 03.01.2020.
4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that out of the commissioner’s report, he also found some defects in the pleadings, hence, the plai
The trial court must consider applications on their merits after a suit is restored, rather than dismissing them based on perceived delays.
The report of an Advocate Commissioner serves as evidence and can be contested, but it cannot be scrapped without a thorough examination of the evidence and the context of the ongoing trial.
A commission report can be remitted for further inquiry without being set aside if it is found to be deficient, ensuring judicial efficiency.
A court may allow amendments to pleadings based on commission reports unless there are substantial reasons to set them aside.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to remit a commissioner's report for further clarifications, asserting that appointing a new commissioner would unnecessarily delay case resolution.
The repeated appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of measuring the suit property without a valid reason is not preferable and leads to multiplicity of proceedings.
The repeated appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of measuring the suit property without a valid reason is not preferable and leads to multiplicity of proceedings.
Trial court must allow reissuance of commissioner's warrant if report has discrepancies, ensuring fair opportunity to prove case.
The court determined that merely remitting a report for clarification does not constitute grounds for review if the original intent is preserved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
