The court determined that prior commission reports must be challenged for further inspections to be warranted.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 150/2018 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg, challenges Ext. P7 order passed by the learned Munsiff. As per Ext. P7, the learned Munsiff dismissed Ext. P5 application filed by the plaintiff for appointing a commission with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor. The trial court dismissed the application mainly for the reason that the petitioner had earlier taken out a commission and the commissioner had filed a report along with a rough sketch, which remains unchallenged, and hence the court found that no further inspection is required. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

“As long as the petitioner has not challenge against the earlier commissioner's report and sketch there is no need to appoint another commissioner and to obtain another report after removing the case from the list. The only case of the petitioner is that the commissioner's measurement of the property with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor and preparation of the survey plan is necessary. As stated above for determining the issue involved in this case such a plan and report is not at all warranted. That be so, for the reason stated in the petition the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for As regards to the identity of plaint A and B schedule property there is already a report and sketch along with the records and the application is filed without raising any challenge against the said report and plan. That be so, the 2^nd application for appointing a commission again is not at all maintainable.”

2. Heard both sides.

3. Ext. P2 is the earlier commission report referred to in the impugned order. It is evident from the report of the commissioner that it was issued at the time of the institution of the suit and that the inspection was conducted in the absence of the respondent. The sketch attached to Ext. P2 is only a rough estimation of the lie of the plots in question. Considering these facts and the nature of the relief sought in the suit, I am of the view that Ext. P5 application is liable to be allowed; however, by issuing the Commission to the very same Commissioner.

In the result, the Original Petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext. P7 order and allowing Ext. P5 application. It is made clear that the respondent is at liberty to submit a work memo to the commissioner, if so advised. Considering the inordinate delay that has occurred in the disposal of the suit, the trial court is directed to ensure that the inspection is conducted and the report is filed in a time-bound manner. The suit shall also be disposed of at the earliest.

Sd/-