The Court emphasized the importance of the Civil Judge's jurisdiction in promptly disposing of applications related to the Commissioner's report and highlighted the need to examine the completeness of the report before accepting it as part of the record.

This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for :

(i) setting aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2016 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Imphal East passed in Judicial Misc. Case No. 279 of 2015 (Ref.: Judicial Misc. Case No. 229 of 2014 & Original Suit No. 5 of 2014),

(ii) praying for an order of superintendence directing the Learned Civil Judge to comply with the provision of Article 141 of the Constitution of India by exercising its jurisdiction in passing Judicial orders,

(iii) and praying for any appropriate order or direction which this Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

2. The petitioner in this case filed an Original Suit in the Court of Learned Civil Judge(Sr. Divn.), Imphal East, praying for an injunction to restrain the defendants (respondents in this case) from interfering with the construction of compound wall between his land and the land of the defendants/respondents and also to restrain the defendants/respondents from entering and disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of his Pattaland being No. 55(Old)/166(New), measuring 0.22 acres, under C.S. Dag No. 240 of village No. 29, at Top Naoriya, Sub-Division Porompat, Imphal East District. The respondents/defendants also filed a written statement coupled with counter claim.

3. While the case was under trial, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a misc. application praying for appointment of a Commissioner for conducting local investigation over the disputed land under Order 26 Rule 9. The same was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 229 of 2014. While this misc. case was pending, the respondents/defendants also filed another application praying for the same. The application of the respondents/defendants was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 288 of 2014. The Learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.) disposed both the petitions by a common order passed on 15.11.2014 by which the learned Judge appointed a Commissioner and laid down the terms of reference. The terms of reference laid down are as follows :

(1) The actual map and field measurement of C.S. Dag No. 240 and 241;

(2) To ascertain the straight boundary line between C.S. Dag No. 240 and 241 as per the Map;

(3) To ascertain whether any area of the Plaintiff’s land bearing C.S. Dag No. 240 has been encroached by southern neighbor Defendant No. 1 to 4 and if so, the area and dimension;

(4) To ascertain the entire length of the C.S. Dag No. 241 which directly adjoins the southern side approach road;

(5) To ascertain whether there is any probability of an approached road which seemed to have been used by the Defendants in any period of time located between the north eastern side of the defendant No. 1 to 3 and eastern side of the plaintiff’s homestead land, opening/leading to the main road i.e. Lisham Road.

(6) Any other fact relating to the dispute which needs to be ascertained by the Local Commissioner.”

Thereafter, the Commissioner appointed by the said order inspected the disputed land and submitted his report.

4. After the report was submitted, both the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants submitted an application each praying for permission to cross-examine the Commissioner. The application of the petitioner which was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 86 of 2015 was disposed on 12.06.2015, allowing the prayer to cross-examine the Commissioner. Accordingly, the petitioner cross-examined the Commissioner on 30.06.2015 and on 17.10.2015. While the same was still going on, the petitioner filed another application on 16.11.2015 under Order 26 Rule 10(3) read with Section 151 of CPC 1908 praying for setting aside the report of the local Commissioner on the grounds briefly stated as follows :

(i) That, the entire terms of reference laid down by the learned Civil Judge have not been answered by the Commissioner in his report;

(ii) That, the map of the disputed land has been record