Court upheld the lower court's discretion regarding commission report remittance, emphasizing the need for specificity in defect identification.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order, whereby a request to remit the commission report has been rejected by the court below. The court below has, in its order, stated that the application does not specifically say as to what are the defects that need to be rectified, and there is also no prayer for a fresh inspection and report. The court hence found that even if the matter is remitted back, the Commissioner will not be able to resubmit the commission report without inspecting the property, and that there is no prayer sought to that effect. It is submitted that the case is posted for examination of the commissioner.

2. In the above circumstances, this original petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the court below to consider whether the commission report has to be remitted and a fresh report has to be called for, after the examination of the Commissioner. It is open to the petitioners to bring out the defects, if any, in the report at the time of examination of the Commissioner.

SD/-