The court determined that merely remitting a report for clarification does not constitute grounds for review if the original intent is preserved.

ORDER

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2026 The review petitioners are the petitioners in the original petition, which was filed assailing the order dated 02.02.2023 in I.A.No.02/2020 in O.S.No.124/2013 on the file of the Court of the Additional Munsiff-II, Ernakulam, (‘Trial Court’, in short), whereby the commission report and plan was remitted back to the Advocate Commissioner.

2. The petitioners have stated in the review petition that, the petitioners had filed the original petition challenging the order remitting the commission report and plan, because they show the true lie and nature of the property. The respondents’ intention is only to delay the proceedings. The petitioners never wanted the commission report and plan to be set aside. Nonetheless, this Court dismissed the original petition confirming the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. There is an error apparent on the face of the judgment because this Court has not considered all the questions raised in the original petition. Hence, the review petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. A reading of the impugned judgment substantiates that, the petitioners had not even filed an objection to the application filed by the respondents to set aside the commission report and plan. Nevertheless, the Trial Court had only remitted the report and plan to the Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of clarifying on certain aspects, and not set aside the report and plan in toto.

5. It is undisputed that, consequent to the judgment, the Advocate Commissioner has already filed the report and plan after remission.

I have carefully analysed the materials on record.

As the Trial Court had not set aside the report and plan, but had only remitted the matter back to the Advocate Commissioner for certain clarifications, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the judgment warranting the review of the judgment. Nonetheless, it is clarified that it will be upto the parties to file their respective objections to the commission report and plan, and raise all their contentions in the suit.

With the above observation, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-