J U D G M E N T

The petitioner herein is the 3^rd defendant in the suit, which was filed for fixation of boundaries and for recovery. The suit was initially allowed by the learned Munsiff, against which an Appeal was filed as AS No. 42 of 2006 before the Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda and by Ext.P1 judgment and decree in OS No. 1097/2002, in so far as dismissed the suit in respect of B & C schedule, was set aside and was remitted for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. After remand, the petitioner filed an application for issuance of a Commission. Thereafter, the Commissioner and Surveyor were directed to measure the property and file a report. Ext.P2 is the report of the Commissioner.

2. The petitioner herein filed Ext.P3 objection to the Commissioner’s report and filed an application as IA No. 3151 of 2014 for remitting the Commission report. The learned Munsiff, by Ext.P5 order, dismissed the application on the ground that it lacks bonafides. The petitioner has filed this Original Petition(Civil) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5.

3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

4. It is seen that the Commissioner has filed a detailed report as Ext.P2, against which the petitioner filed Ext.P3 report, pointing out various discrepancies in the report. Along with the report, an application was also filed to remit the same. A perusal of Ext.P5 order shows that the learned Munsiff had only taken into consideration the grounds stated in Ext.P4 for remitting, but did not take into consideration the objections raised in Ext.P3 against the Commissioner’s report. The learned Munsiff was carried away by the fact that the petitioner had not stated in the objection that the Commission report suffers from any defects and also its identification. The observation was made without looking into Ext.P3 objection.

5. When an objection is filed with an application to remit, the learned Munsiff ought to have considered the objections and thereafter, orders ought to have been passed. But, this is lacking in this order. Therefore, Ext.P5 has to be set aside and requires reconsideration.

6. In the result, this O.P.(C) is allowed. Ext.P5 is set aside, and the learned Munsiff is directed to reconsider IA No. 3151 of 2014 along with Ext.P3 objection, and the learned Munsiff is directed to pass fresh orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.