Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Sami Velladan – Appellant
Versus
Muhammed – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition challenges acceptance of commission report. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence in the commission report. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. ruling on findings of the munsiff's order. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's observations on evidence and trial court's jurisdiction. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final observations and dismissal of the review petition. (Para 10) |
| 6. final dismissal of the review petition with observations. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
Murali Purushothaman, J.
This review petition is filed against the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by this Court in O.P.(C) No.2351 of 2022.
2. The review petitioners preferred the original petition against Ext.P11 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Manjeri rejecting Ext. P9 application filed by them under Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to set aside Ext.P7 Commission report and Ext.P8 plan. It was contended that in Ext.P8 plan, plaint B schedule way, which is the disputed property is not identified and marked. It was also contended that the Advocate Commissioner has not ascertained and reported other requisite particulars sought for in Ext.P6 application. According to the petitioners, the report and pla
The court upheld the trial court's decision, confirming that Commission reports must adequately support the identification of disputed property, emphasizing the importance of presenting sufficient ev....
Point of Law : when the plaintiff approached the learned Munsiff for fixing the southern boundary of his property, the Munsiff is bound to adjudicate the dispute and to give a verdict.
A court must reconsider an application for the appointment of a commission if a previous judicial finding arguably contradicts the factual assertions contained in an existing commission report regard....
Advocate Commissioner's report not final; can be impeached with evidence at trial; no interference absent jurisdictional error.
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.
The Advocate Commissioner's report is non-adjudicatory and serves only to assist the court, not to bind it in decision-making.
The court determines the necessity of adhering to survey records in partition proceedings, emphasizing accurate property identification.
Trial Court may not modify orders without sufficient justification and must consider all previous decisions unless challenged.
The court determined that prior commission reports must be challenged for further inspections to be warranted.
The court determined that an Advocate Commissioner's report cannot be entirely scrapped but may require further inquiry for a satisfactory resolution in civil proceedings.
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
