Discrepancies in expert reports can be evaluated at trial without warranting remittance of the report.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The application to remit the Commissioner’s report was dismissed by the Tribunal. The order is under challenge in this original petition.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the discrepancy in the report with regard to the age of the trees.

3. Exts.P2 and P4 are the reports earlier submitted by the Commissioner and the Expert. Ext.P10 is the report presently submitted by the Expert with specific reference to the age of the trees and its common names.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is apparent discrepancy with regard to the age of the trees in the two reports. The discrepancies are beyond reconciliation. Hence, the report is liable to be remitted, is the argument.

5. In the order impugned, the trial court has observed thus;

“Further at the time of trial the applicants will get chance to examine or cross examine the expert and any clarification required can be brought out through him and if the applicants are successful in establishing that the report of the expert suffers from any defects or insufficiency, they can pray for either remitting the report to the same expert or for setting aside the report. The case is of the year 2008.”

6. We concur with the Tribunal in holding that the applicants are having an opportunity at the time of trial to prove the correctness or otherwise of the reports. The right of the applicants are not effected. There is no warrant to interfere with the order impugned.

Resultantly, the original petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-