Commission reports are essential in property boundary disputes, and parties must actively participate and submit objections to challenge findings effectively.

JUDGMENT :

K. Natarajan, J.

This Original petition is filed by the petitioners/defendant No.1,3 and 4 (except 2^nd defendant) by challenging the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Punalur in I.A No. 5/2024 in O.S No. 139/2016 dated 15.10.2024.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed suit for declaration and fixation of boundary, claiming the Land Survey No. 845/4/5 measuring 43 cents as well as 11 cents said to be claimed right through a gift deed as well as a will said to be executed by the sister of the plaintiff. After the filing of the suit, the defendants Nos. 1, 3, and 4 filed a written statement with a counterclaim by claiming 35 cents of property said to be purchased from the grandmother under the sale deed dated 11.06.2010 and also stated 8 cents of land has been gifted to the son of the plaintiff, who is the second defendant. During the trial the commissioner has been appointed on the application filed by the plaintiff, and the commissioner is said to have surveyed the land with the help of the surveyor and filed a report. Subsequently the petitioner said he filed this application for remitting back the commissioner's report, which came dismissed, hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the commissioner did not properly verify the spot, and he has mentioned various properties without mentioning the name of the defendant. The defendant's property has not been identified by the commissioner. The one side of the A schedule property, the defendant property, was also situated but was not properly identified. Therefore, the petitioner filed an objection along with an application for remitting back the commission report, which came to be dismissed by the trial court, which is not correct. In order to determine the rights of the parties, especially the defendants, it is necessary to remit back the commission report for a fresh commission report. Therefore, they prayed for allowing the petition by setting aside the order.

5. Per contra, the learner counsel respondent supported the order of the trial court and contended that once the commission has been appointed, the commissioner has visited the spot. The petitioner has not filed any work memo to the commissioner to identify the properties as per his document. Even after submission of the commission report, the petitioner did not file any objection to the commission report, and after examination of the commissioners as PW1 and PW2, the petitioner also cross- examined the commissioners and kept quiet. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application to recall the commissioners' evidence, which was dismissed. The same was not challenged, and once again the present application was filed for remitting back the commission report for nothing but reviewing the order. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the application. The petitioner has not filed any work memo and has not filed any objection to the commission report and has not even produced any document for the commissioners when he went to the spot the question of remitting back the commission report does not arise. This court has already given direction to the trial court to dispose of both suits, which included another suit filed by the sister of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 165/2017, where the cancellation of the gift deed has been challenged and that is also pending. Both suits are tried together. A direction was issued to dispose of these suits within 8 months by the Coordinate bench of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner filing the application is dragging the matter it should not