The Munsiff's discretion to address commission report objections at trial was upheld, reflecting judicial efficiency amidst case backlogs.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff in a suit for fixation of boundary, O.S No.911/2007 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this Original Petition challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Munsiff. On the application moved by the plaintiff, an advocate commissioner with the assistance of a surveyor carried out measurement over the properties and filed a report and plan. Plaintiff had serious objections to such report and plan. She moved a petition for setting aside the report to have further measurement of the property. That application happened to be dismissed for default. Plaintiff thereafter filed two petitions, one for condoning the delay in seeking restoration and the other for restoring the previous application moved for setting aside the report. The learned Munsiff considering those applications passed Ext.P5 order, by which it was ordered that the objections to the commission report shall be considered at the stage of trial after recording the evidence. To the extent the court has directed for consideration of the report at the trial, feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this Original Petition O.P.(C) No.943 OF 2011 impeaching the correctness of Ext.P5 order invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .

2. Notice given, the respondent has entered appearance.

I heard the counsel on both sides. Examination of the commissioner and determination of the merit of the report and plan before the case proceeds with trial is necessary to find out whether the suit has to be amended to seek a further relief of recovery of possession, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. It is also submitted that the report and plan already filed by the advocate commissioner suffer from serious infirmity. I am not impressed by the submissions as aforesaid made by the counsel to assail Ext.P5 order. If a challenge is made against the report and plan prepared by an advocate commissioner deputed by the court, after measurement of the property, its evidentiary value has to be scrutinized, providing opportunity to substantiate the objection. In very many cases the examination of the commissioner and also the surveyor who assisted him will be necessary, to sustain the objections raised. It may be advantageous if such examination could be done before the case proceeds with the trial, but, having regard to the pendency and backlog of cases and time constraints of court, if orders are passed for O.P.(C) No.943 OF 2011 consideration of the objections to the commission report at the stage of trial, it cannot be found fault with. That alone has been done by the court passing Ext.P5 order. Order passed by the court does not suffer from any infirmity, leave alone any illegality, warranting interference by this court.

The Original Petition is dismissed.