The court established that new facts can warrant the appointment of a commission, despite previous reports, ensuring justice in the procedural context.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1805/2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur, challenges Ext. P16 order passed by the learned Munsiff rejecting an application for appointing a Commission.

2. According to the petitioner unless the commission application is allowed, she will be put to great hardships.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent.

4. In the affidavit accompanying Ext. P14 application, the petitioner stated as follows:

“WP(C) 6194/2008 -)o നമര(cid:4) ക(cid:6)സ(cid:8)ന(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10) 20-06-2018-(cid:9)(cid:11) വ(cid:8)ധ(cid:8) ന(cid:14)(cid:15)യത(cid:8)ൽ Show Cause Notice -ൽ പ(cid:10)യ(cid:20)ന എല(cid:15) (cid:11)(cid:24)ഘനങള(cid:20)(cid:24) ബ(cid:8)ൽഡർ പര(cid:8)ഹര(cid:8)ചത(cid:15)യ(cid:8)

ത"ശ$ർ ക(cid:6)(cid:15)ർപക(cid:10)ഷൻ ക(cid:6)(cid:15)ടത(cid:8)യ(cid:8)ൽ ക)റ(cid:4)(cid:9)+ന(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:4) നൽ(cid:6)(cid:8)യത(cid:15)യ(cid:8) (cid:6)(cid:15)ണ(cid:20)ന(cid:20).

ആയത(cid:20) ശര(cid:8)യല. ആയത(cid:4) ബഹ(cid:20). ക(cid:6)(cid:15)ടത(cid:8) +(cid:20)മ(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:6) (cid:9)തള(cid:8)യ(cid:8)ക(cid:20)നത(cid:8)നExpert

എൻജ(cid:8)ന1യ(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:9)ട സഹ(cid:15)യകത(cid:15)(cid:9)ട വഹ(cid:6)ൾ പര(cid:8)കശ(cid:15)ധ(cid:8)ക(cid:20)നത(cid:8)ന (cid:4) ഒര(cid:20)

(cid:6)മ1ഷണ(cid:9)(cid:10) അന(cid:20)വദ(cid:8)ച(cid:20)തരവ(cid:20)ണ(cid:15)ക(cid:6)ണത(cid:20)(cid:24) ആയത(cid:8)നകപകയ(cid:20)ളത(cid:20)+(cid:15)ണ (cid:4) .

Expert എൻജ(cid:8)ന1യ(cid:10)(cid:20)(cid:9)ട പ(cid:15)നൽ ഇ(cid:9)ത(cid:15)ന(cid:8)ച(cid:4) ഹ(cid:15)ജര(cid:15)ക(cid:20)ന(cid:20)ണ.(cid:4) “

5. In Ext.P16 order the learned Munsiff observed thus:

“On perusal of the earlier 2 reports submitted by the commissioner it can be seen that each and every meticulous facts regarding building which was under construction and it is premises were noted by the commissioner in his first report filed in IA No.4615/2006. Subsequently he was again taken to the plaint scheduled properties in IA No.14688/12 who has filed his report detailing the entire development in the construction including the occupation by the inmates and the projection of sun shade etc. towards each direction. All the points sought to be answered by the commissioner are already answered by him in his earlier reports.”

6. It is evident that the matter sought to be inspected by the petitioner pertains to events that occurred subsequent to the earlier Commission reports. According to the petitioner, the statement filed by the fist respondent/ builder that all the defects have been rectified is incorrect, and the request for appointment of a Commission was made to establish the said fact.

7. However, the impugned order was passed without ascertaining the true purpose upon which the application was filed. As noted above, the court erroneously concluded that the earlier two reports are sufficient to cover the questions additionally raised. In the said circumstances, Ext. P16 order is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the original petition is allowed, and Ext.

P16 order is set aside. Ext. P14 application stands allowed. The petitioner as well as the first respondent can submit a panel of experts, and the learned Munsiff shall appoint an expert therefrom. It will be open to both sides to submit a further work memo.

Sd/-