Dated, this the 12th day of March, 2024 This Original Petition is preferred by the petitioner, who is the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No.736/2014. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P20 order, which rejected Ext.P17 application to remit Ext.P16 Commission report.

2. Ext.P1 is the plaint as originally filed, wherein the relief sought for is only for injunction simpliciter, restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the trees from the plaint schedule property, and also, from making any construction therein. The suit was subsequently amended. As per Ext.P2 amended plaint, a declaration is sought for that plaint B1 and B2 schedule properties, which is part of the original B schedule property, is remaining as a burial ground, as envisaged in Document no.2337/1900. The second declaration sought for is to the effect that the proceedings in L.A.R No.414/1978 and the proceedings in O.S.No.673/2000 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kozhikode etc., will not bind B1 and B2 schedule properties and the rights of the plaintiffs over the same. B1 and B2 schedule properties were also sought to be recovered by virtue of the third amended prayer. A commission application was filed to identify plaint B schedule property, particularly the properties described as B1 and B2 respectively of the amended plaint. An interim report, Ext.P9, was filed by the Commissioner stating that the property cannot be identified, except with the assistance of the Surveyor. Thereafter, as many as four additional work memos were preferred by the plaintiff vide Exts.P10, P11, P13 and P15, which narrates the manner in which the measurement has to be effected, so as to identify plaint B1 and B2 scheduled properties, especially in the light of certain documents, which are referred to therein. The Commissioner filed a report on 28.03.2019, marked Ext.P16, to which Ext.P17 objection was preferred by the plaintiff, pointing out that the property was not measured as required in the work memos and, therefore, seeking to remit the Commissioner's report. The same was dismissed vide the impugned Ext.P20 order.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the finding in Ext.P20 to the effect that the plaintiff/petitioner had not specified the document, based upon which, the plaint B schedule property has to be measured and identified is completely wrong, inasmuch as the work memos preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner specifies such documents. According to the learned counsel, without identifying the burial ground as envisaged in the document of the year 1900 in the Commission report, the very purpose of the suit will be defeated. Learned counsel would point out that there is no reference in Ext.P16 Commission report, as regards the efforts, if any, taken by the Commissioner, as also, the Surveyor to measure out the properties in the manner specified in the work memos above referred, especially when such work memos were allowed by the trial court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would argue to sustain Ext.P16 Commission report. Learned counsel would point out plaint schedule items B1 and B2 were clearly identified in the plan attached to Ext.P16 report and that the same is shown specifically demarcated therein. The question as to whether a burial ground is there in the properties comprised in B1 and B2 schedule is not something, which can be answered by the Commissioner. According to the learned counsel, the Commissioner can only identify the property and shall also report the present lie and nature. The question as to whether there ought to have been a burial ground in terms of the document of the year 1900, is not something, which is within the domain of the Commissioner to answer.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. This Court endorses the submission made by the learned counsel for the