AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Shivendra Bikaram Singh...

Checking relevance for President, SIUC VS State Of Kerala...

Checking relevance for Commissioner Of Income Tax VS B. N. Bhattacharjee...

Checking relevance for SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA...

Checking relevance for Shiv Sagar Tiwari VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS. VS VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT...

Checking relevance for Indian Statistical Institute VS Associated Builders...

Checking relevance for Mayilsamy VS Muthusamy...

Mayilsamy VS Muthusamy - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 592 : Once an objection against an Advocate Commissioner''''s report has been adjudicated and ruled upon by the court, the party cannot raise the same objection again. The court held that if the Advocate Commissioner''''s report has already been filed and no objection was raised at the time, or if an objection was raised and decided, then re-issuing the warrant or re-raising the same objection is not maintainable. The principle established is that unless the earlier report is scrapped, the question of re-issuing the warrant does not arise. Furthermore, the court emphasized that once the report is admitted and the parties have had the opportunity to object and cross-examine, there is no necessity to re-appoint the Commissioner or re-issue the warrant, as it would only create complications without aiding the court in proper decision-making.Checking relevance for Mohammad Jaheer VS District Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad)...

Mohammad Jaheer VS District Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2139 : The plaintiff cannot raise the same objection again after it has already been adjudicated and ruled upon by the court. In the present case, the objection filed by the plaintiff (Paper No. 35C) against the Amin Commissioner''''s report and map was disposed of on its merit by the court on 30.09.2022. Since the same facts were already agitated and decided, there is no justification to recall the previous order or to issue a second commission through a subsequent application (Paper No. 37C).Checking relevance for Mantu Chowdhury VS Subhas Chowdhury...

Mantu Chowdhury VS Subhas Chowdhury - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1539 : The court ruled that the plaintiff''''s objection against the advocate commissioner''''s report, which was previously adjudicated and rejected by the lower court, could still be raised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the lower court''''s acceptance of the report without considering the plaintiff''''s written objections constituted a material irregularity and a failure to apply judicial mind. The court further rejected the argument of the opposite parties that the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the report, emphasizing that the objection was not waived and that the report''''s inadequacies—such as failure to locate trijunction pillars, lack of fixed reference points, and absence of measurement of all four sides of the room—rendered it unreliable. Therefore, the plaintiff was not barred from raising the same objection at the appellate stage under Article 227, as the issue involved a fundamental irregularity in the judicial process.Checking relevance for Prema W/o. Unnikrishnan vs Sarojini W/o. Late, Sreeraman...

Checking relevance for T. K. Vijayakumari VS Subhash Mohan, S/o. Kalariparambil Kuttan...

Checking relevance for Rosy VS State Of Kerala...

Checking relevance for R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple...

Checking relevance for Municipal Corporation Of Delhi VS Intnl. Security And Intelligence Agency LTD. ...

Checking relevance for N. Jayaram Reddi VS Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool...

Checking relevance for Bipin Shantilal Panchal VS State Of Gujarat...

Checking relevance for State Of H. P. VS Surinder Mohan...

Checking relevance for Jagdish Bhagat VS Sri Baijnath Rai...

Jagdish Bhagat VS Sri Baijnath Rai - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 847 : The court held that the objection petition filed by the plaintiffs against the report of the Pleader Commissioner was not properly adjudicated on merit by the lower court. The judgment explicitly states that the lower court erred in dismissing the objection petition without considering it on its merits, and that the court below should have exercised its jurisdiction to consider the objections on merit and take further action if dissatisfied with the report. The court further clarified that the objection petition was not finally disposed of in a manner that barred re-raising the issue, as the order merely gave liberty to the plaintiffs to refer the report during final arguments. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to raise the same objection again during final arguments, and the rejection of the objection petition did not constitute a final adjudication that would bar re-litigation of the same issue.Checking relevance for Ganesan VS Vijayalakshmi...

Ganesan VS Vijayalakshmi - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 2700 : The plaintiff did not file any objection to the report of the first Advocate Commissioner in the Trial Court. The court held that since the plaintiff had not objected to the report, and the First Appellate Court appointed a second Advocate Commissioner without scrapping the earlier report or recording reasons for disbelieving it, the appointment was legally flawed. The judgment further emphasizes that a second Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed without a finding that the earlier report is unsatisfactory, and mere objections by a party do not justify a new appointment. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot raise the same objection again in a subsequent stage, as the failure to object initially in the Trial Court means the report is deemed accepted, and the court cannot later entertain the same objection without proper grounds.

AI Overview...

Objection Filing and Finality of Reports - Parties must file specific objections to Advocate Commissioner's reports and maps when they have concerns regarding measurements, encroachments, or procedural irregularities. Once objections are considered and disposed of by the court, re-raising the same objections on the same facts is generally not permitted, especially if the original objections were decided on merit. Multiple sources emphasize that courts are expected to examine objections thoroughly before accepting, varying, or setting aside reports, and subsequent attempts to challenge the same report after disposal are typically barred. ["Mohammad Jaheer VS District Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2139"], ["Bhaskaran v. K. Balan - Kerala"], ["Mantu Chowdhury VS Subhas Chowdhury - Calcutta"], ["Minati Das VS Jagatdhatri Das - Calcutta"], ["T. K. Vijayakumari VS Subhash Mohan, S/o. Kalariparambil Kuttan - Kerala"]
Legal Doctrine on Re-raising Objections - Courts have consistently held that once an objection to a commission report has been adjudicated, the same objection cannot be re-argued unless new facts or evidence emerge. The principle of finality is reinforced by cases where parties, despite being present during the commission, fail to object initially and are estopped from challenging the report later. ["Mohammad Jaheer VS District Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2139"], ["Mantu Chowdhury VS Subhas Chowdhury - Calcutta"], ["Minati Das VS Jagatdhatri Das - Calcutta"]
Exceptions and Court Discretion - Courts retain the authority to set aside or vary a commission report if they find procedural lapses, incorrect measurements, or if the report is not in accordance with on-site findings. Even if objections were initially filed and disposed of, courts may revisit the report if irregularities or errors are identified subsequently. ["PANKAJAKSHAN.C.V vs UCHUMMAL MOHANAN - Kerala"], ["Augustine VS Jancy Thomas - Kerala"], ["Kashinath Mondal VS Achinta Naiya - Calcutta"], ["Valarmathi VS K. Rakkiappan - Madras"]
Conclusion - A plaintiff or party cannot typically re-raise the same objection against an Advocate Commissioner's report once it has been adjudicated and disposed of by the court, unless there are new facts or procedural errors justifying reconsideration. The courts emphasize finality and proper procedural adherence in handling objections to commission reports.

Can Plaintiff Re-Raise Objection to Advocate Commission Report?

In civil litigation, Advocate Commissioners play a crucial role in assisting courts with local investigations, surveys, and reports under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. Their reports often become pivotal evidence in property disputes, boundary issues, and injunction suits. But what happens when a party files objections to such a report, the court adjudicates them, and rules on the matter? Can the same plaintiff raise the very same objection again in subsequent proceedings?

This question arises frequently: Objection against Advocate Commission Report Filed by the Plaintiff same Adjudicated and Ruled by the Court can the Plaintiff again Raise the Vary same Objection? Generally, the answer is no. Once adjudicated, the court's ruling binds the parties under principles of res judicata and finality, preventing abuse of process. This blog post delves into the legal framework, key judgments, exceptions, and practical recommendations, drawing from authoritative sources.

Understanding Advocate Commissioner's Role and Objections

Under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC, courts appoint Advocate Commissioners for tasks like measuring property or verifying facts. Parties may file objections to the report, which the court must consider on merits. These objections typically challenge accuracy, methodology, or bias.

However, finality is paramount. As observed in a key ruling, objections should be considered on merit and that once disposed of, the same objections cannot be re-urged without new facts or grounds Jagdish Bhagat VS Sri Baijnath Rai - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 847. Courts emphasize thorough adjudication at the initial stage to avoid repetitive litigation.

Core Legal Principle: No Re-Raising of Identical Objections

Finality of Court's Adjudication

Once the court rules on an objection to an Advocate Commissioner's report, it achieves finality for that issue. Re-agitating the same objection on identical facts and grounds is impermissible. In one case, the court noted that the objection petition is not fit to be accepted and at the time of final hearing of the suit, the report of the Pleader Commissioner can be considered Jagdish Bhagat VS Sri Baijnath Rai - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 847. This underscores that post-adjudication, the report stands unless set aside through proper channels.

Res Judicata and Abuse of Process

The doctrine of res judicata (Section 11 CPC) bars re-litigation of decided matters. Applied here, it prevents the plaintiff from re-raising adjudicated objections. A judgment clarifies: once the objection petition of the plaintiff against the Amin Commissioner's report has been disposed of on its merit, then again on same facts, there appears no justification to recall the previous order or to issue a second commission Mohammad Jaheer VS District Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2139.

Similarly, unless the earlier report is scrapped through proper proceedings, re-issuance of warrants or re-raising objections without scrapping the previous report is unsustainable Mayilsamy VS Muthusamy - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 592. These principles promote judicial efficiency.

Insights from Related Judgments

Several cases reinforce this stance. In a property dispute, the First Appellate Court erred by appointing a second Advocate Commissioner without addressing or scrapping the first report. The High Court held: both substantial questions of law turn on second Advocate Commissioner being appointed by First Appellate Court without scrapping report of first Advocate Commissioner... Moment appointment of second Advocate Commissioner is faulted... it follows as a necessary and inevitable sequitur that First Appellate Court ought not to have granted relief Ganesan VS Vijayalakshmi - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2700. This highlights the need to respect prior reports absent valid challenge.

In another instance, where objections were ignored despite being on record, the court upheld the report after the Commissioner was examined under Order 26 Rule 10(3) CPC. It ruled no error in acceptance, as the learned First Appellate Court did not err in accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner as the Advocate Commissioner was duly examined Dharam Raj VS Padma - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1031. This shows courts prioritize procedural compliance over belated objections.

Contrastingly, in a suit involving a commission report, the court confirmed that even without explicit objections, boundaries could be verified independently: Contention... that the Courts below erred in holding that the appellant has not filed any objections to the Commissioners report... has no force - Report of the Advocate Commissioner is only to assist the Court ANTHONIAMMAL @ PANKAJAM VS XAVIER FRANCIS FERNANDES (DIED) - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 3685.

These rulings collectively affirm: adjudicated objections bind parties, and deviations invite reversal.

Exceptions: When Re-Agitation May Be Possible

While the general rule is strict, limited exceptions exist:- New Facts or Evidence: If material not previously available emerges, a fresh challenge may be entertained. However, the provided judgments do not extensively cover this, applying the rule rigorously Jagdish Bhagat VS Sri Baijnath Rai - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 847.- Procedural Irregularities: If the initial adjudication overlooked key aspects, remedies like review (Order 47 CPC) or appeal apply, not re-filing identical objections.- Interlocutory Nature: Commission orders are often interlocutory, challengeable during trial, but post-final disposal on merits, finality prevails Mohammad Jaheer VS District Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2139.

Parties must act diligently; unclean hands or delays undermine claims, as seen in specific performance cases where failure to object timely barred relief John Bau VS F. M. Antony - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 2812.

Practical Recommendations for Litigants and Courts

To navigate this:- File Comprehensive Objections Early: Present all grounds and evidence initially. Courts remand for merit consideration if needed Jagdish Bhagat VS Sri Baijnath Rai - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 847.- Seek Appeals or Reviews: Dissatisfied parties should appeal (Section 96/100 CPC) or review, not re-litigate.- Courts' Role: Adjudicate objections thoroughly to ensure finality, discouraging repetition for efficiency.- Additional Evidence Caution: Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, new evidence in appeals requires justification; mere existence at prior stages bars admission Dharam Raj VS Padma - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1031.

Key Takeaways

Adjudicated objections to Advocate Commission reports cannot be re-raised on the same grounds due to res judicata and finality Mohammad Jaheer VS District Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2139 Jagdish Bhagat VS Sri Baijnath Rai - 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 847.
Respect prior reports unless properly set aside Mayilsamy VS Muthusamy - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 592 Ganesan VS Vijayalakshmi - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2700.
Prioritize initial proceedings to avoid abuse of process.

Disclaimer: This post provides general information based on cited judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance, as outcomes may vary by facts and jurisdiction.

In conclusion, upholding finality in objection adjudications streamlines civil justice, preventing endless cycles of litigation. Understanding these principles empowers parties in commission-related disputes.

#CivilLaw #ResJudicata #CPCIndia

Augustine VS Jancy Thomas - 2023 Supreme(Ker) 967

whether the parties have filed any objection or not to the Commission Report. ... As per the preliminary decree, 2/6th shares allotted to the first plaintiff and 1/6th share allotted to the second plaintiff. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed FDIA, for which the first respondent filed objection. ... Vasanthi ....

PANKAJAKSHAN.C.V vs UCHUMMAL MOHANAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39929

The commissioner's report was filed, and the very 3rd plaintiff filed an objection before the commission report, stating that the report of the commissioner is not correct regarding measurement and lies. ... The measurement was also not properly adjudicated in the order simply, it is stated that the A and B properties measure 32.5 cen....

Kashinath Mondal VS Achinta Naiya - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1410

Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge appointed another learned advocate commissioner in compliance with the order passed by the first appellate court. The learned advocate commissioner completed the work of commission and filed a report before the learned court below on September 22, 2008. ... Along with the said report, a sketch map had been prepared,....

Dharam Raj VS Padma - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1031

He says that the learned First Appellate Court by ignoring such objection had concluded that the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner and the survey conducted by him had not been disputed by the appellant notwithstanding, a written objection to such report being on record. ... Banerjee, learned senior counsel representing the appellant by referring to the judgment ....

Minati Das VS Jagatdhatri Das - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 4

Indisputably, the appellants were present at the time of commission work and did not raise any objection against the measurement of the suit property. They did not even file any written objection to the learned Commissioner's report. ... Neither did he raise any objection at the time of commission work nor did the appellants file any objectio....

T. K. Vijayakumari VS Subhash Mohan, S/o. Kalariparambil Kuttan - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 970

Such report or reports shall be annexed to the commission and transmitted to the Court; and the Court, after hearing any objection which the parties may make to the report or reports, shall confirm, vary or set aside the same. ... A cursory reading of Rule 14(2) makes it clear that, such report or reports shall be annexed to the commission#HL....

Valarmathi VS K. Rakkiappan - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1631

, the petition for Advocate Commission was rejected. ... The Learned Counsel for the Respondent in OS.No.141 of 2022 had vehement objection to the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stating that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed in IA.No.3 of 2022 and he had filed the report along with plan. ... Considering the fact that after the suit was instituted immediately, ....

John Bau VS F. M. Antony - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 2812

As against the same, the present cross-objection has been filed by the plaintiff before this Court. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the arguments and considering both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court while dismissing the prayer for specific performance, has granted the alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.3 lakhs with interest at the rate of 9%.

M. Pandian VS R. Pasupathy - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 75

The same has been marked subject to the objection put forth by the plaintiff. As rightly held by the courts below the defendants has not whisphered about the abovesaid letter in the written statement. Furthermore, D.W.2 examined on behalf of the defendants to substantiate the panchayat held in the matter has deposed that he is not aware as to when Ex.B2 was written and as to who are the other signatories of the document. The defendants have marked the letter said to have been....

Ganesan VS Vijayalakshmi - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2700

It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that when an Advocate Commissioner has already been appointed by the Trial Court and when he has filed report, sketch, etc., after making a local inspection and when the plaintiff has not chosen to file any objection to the same and when no objection has been urged by the respondent (plaintiff) in the first appeal, First Appellate Court, in an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff, ought not to have appoi....

SHYAM SUNDAR VS KANTI PRASAD - 2018 Supreme(All) 41

At the stage of appeal after getting copy of newspaper ‘Jwala’ (relevant page) dated 14.2.1982 from the office of the publisher the appellant filed the same as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil P.C. The publisher Shri Devi Prasad Gaur was produced by the defendants who did not deny the publication and its contents as forged but said who issued this copy of newspaper from his office he did not know. The plaintiff filed objection but the same was rejected and the lower a....

ANTHONIAMMAL @ PANKAJAM VS XAVIER FRANCIS FERNANDES (DIED) - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 3685

Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court failed to see that direction given in the order of remand was not complied with. It clearly shows that the non application of mind of the learned Judge. The appellant filed objection to the Advocate Commissioner's report and also filed an application for re-issue of warrant of commission. The Courts below did not consider the objection and application filed by the appellant for re-issue of warrant and erroneously held that the ....