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 evidence in litigation.

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 plan are not useful for resolving the controversy in the suit and the trial court ought to have set aside the Commission report or in the alternative, remitted the report and plan to the Commissioner for ascertaining the matter requested in Ext.P6 application.

3. The learned Munsiff, after examining the Commissioner, dismissed Ext.P9 application by Ext. P11 order stating that the reasons stated in the application are insufficient to set aside the Commission report. The learned Munsiff observed that the Commissioner has identified and marked the plaint schedule properties as required by the petitioners in Ext.P6 application. This Court, finding no error of jurisdiction or error of law in Ext. P11 order, refused to interfere with it in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the original petition.

4. In this review petition, it is stated that, in Ext. P11, the trial court has proceeded on the mistaken premise that the plaint B schedule way is already marked by the Commissioner in Ext.C2(a), whereas the same is only a rough sketch. It is also stated that the trial court lost sight of Ext. P12 order by which earlier sketch and report were remitted to the Commissioner to measure out and identify the plaint B schedule way, and also to incorporate the other particulars sought for in Ext.P6 application. It is therefore contended that when the mandate of Ext. P12 order is not complied with by the Commissioner, the finding of this Court confirming Ext.P11 order on the ground that there is no error of law or error of jurisdiction, amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further contended that, though this Court had referred to the contention of the petitioners that Ext.P8 plan submitted by the Commissioner is bereft of plotting data, necessary to plot the field, and in the absence of the same, Ext.P8 plan cannot be relied on, this Court did not answer the said contention in the impugned judgment, which amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record.

5. Heard Sri.Rajesh R Kormath, the learned counsel for the review petitioners and Sri. S.Ranjit, the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The object of deputing an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection under Order XXVI Rule 10 of CPC is to gather evidence like identity of the property and its physical features. The Commission report will be helpful to clear or explain any point which is left doubtful in the evidence on record. Though the power conferred under Order XXVI Rule 9 can be exercised at any stage, the trial courts are usually expected to decide the issue regarding acceptability of the Commission report before proceeding with the trial of the suit. On the basis of Ext.P9 application to set aside Ext.P7 Commission report and Ext