Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In civil litigation, especially property disputes or matters requiring local investigations, commission reports play a crucial role. These reports, prepared by court-appointed commissioners, provide evidence on facts like property boundaries or site conditions. But what happens when such a report is found deficient? A common question arises: A commission report can be remitted for further inquiry without being set aside if it is found to be deficient.
This post explores this legal principle under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, drawing from key provisions, judicial precedents, and practical insights. Understanding this can help litigants navigate court proceedings effectively. Note that while this provides general information, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Generally, courts possess the power to remit a commission report for further inquiry if it is deficient or unsatisfactory, without necessarily setting it aside, provided procedural requirements are met and discretion is exercised judiciously. This approach ensures justice without discarding potentially valuable evidence outright. T. K. Vijayakumari VS Subhash Mohan, S/o. Kalariparambil Kuttan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 970BALAN VS KOUSU - 1983 0 Supreme(Ker) 63
The report, once filed, becomes part of the suit record and serves as evidence. However, courts retain authority to address defects through further inquiry rather than outright rejection. BALAN VS KOUSU - 1983 0 Supreme(Ker) 63Chinmayee Saha VS Renuka Halder - 2015 0 Supreme(Cal) 495
Order XXVI Rule 10(3) explicitly permits courts to direct further inquiry when dissatisfied with a commissioner's proceedings or report. This provision supports remitting the same report for clarification or supplementation, avoiding the need for a fresh commission unless warranted. BALAN VS KOUSU - 1983 0 Supreme(Ker) 63
For instance, if the report lacks detail on property identification, the court may order the commissioner to remedy specific defects. As noted in judicial views, If the Report of the First Commissioner is found to be deficient on any point, the proper course would be to direct same Commissioner to remedy the defects. M. Ammasayappan VS Muthusamy (Died) - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 3812Periyasamy Nadar & Another VS Gandhi Nadar & Another - 2005 Supreme(Mad) 1417
Courts have consistently upheld this position. In Hydrose vs. Govindankutty (Kerala High Court), the court emphasized that a report cannot be effaced from the record without legal authority but can be remitted for further inquiry. BALAN VS KOUSU - 1983 0 Supreme(Ker) 63
Similarly, the Patna High Court in Shib Charan Sahu held that reports remain on record unless explicitly set aside, allowing directions for second commissions or remands for additional evidence. BALAN VS KOUSU - 1983 0 Supreme(Ker) 63
In another case, the court clarified: A second Commission cannot be appointed without setting aside the previous report unless it suffers from deficiencies that can be remedied through further inquiry. JOY CHERIAN Vs GEORGE CHERIAN - 2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46588
The Madras High Court reinforced: Further inquiry to be made contemplated by O.26, Rule 10(3) pre-supposes that an enquiry by the same commissioner also is possible if the court feels so. Periyasamy Nadar & Another VS Gandhi Nadar & Another - 2005 Supreme(Mad) 1417
This distinction prevents unnecessary delays. In property suits, for example, if a commission report fails to resolve boundary disputes adequately, remittal with specific instructions is preferred over scrapping. Sami Velladan vs Muhammed - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2926Yudathadevus S/o. Xavier VS Joseph S/o. Xavier - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 721
Courts must:- Record reasons for dissatisfaction (e.g., incomplete measurements or overlooked evidence).- Specify the scope of further inquiry.- Ensure parties have opportunities to respond.
Arbitrary remands are vulnerable to challenge. In one case, the trial court erred by scrapping a report without reasons; the higher court set it aside, sustaining re-appointment of the same commissioner for a supplementary report. Periyasamy Nadar & Another VS Gandhi Nadar & Another - 2005 Supreme(Mad) 1417
Parties should file applications under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC, highlighting deficiencies like those in Ext.P6 applications for better property ascertainment. Sami Velladan vs Muhammed - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2926
While primarily civil, similar principles apply in disciplinary proceedings. For instance, remanding inquiry reports without supplying copies to parties has been critiqued, emphasizing procedural fairness. Union of India vs Pravin KumarUnion of India VS Pravin Kumar - 2019 Supreme(Del) 2360
In selection processes by commissions like Public Service Commissions, courts interfere only if actions are arbitrary, underscoring limited judicial review. Ramhinge VS State Meghalaya - 2005 Supreme(Gau) 338Ramhinge VS State Meghalaya - 2005 Supreme(Gau) 341
These cases highlight that remittal is a balanced tool across contexts, provided grounds are genuine.
Courts cannot remit indiscriminately:- Must identify specific deficiencies.- Cannot appoint fresh commissions without assessing the first report's merits. JOY CHERIAN Vs GEORGE CHERIAN - 2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46588- Blanket rejections without orders leave parties in limbo. Yudathadevus S/o. Xavier VS Joseph S/o. Xavier - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 721
In summary, yes—a commission report can be remitted for further inquiry without being set aside if deficient, rooted in Order XXVI Rule 10(3) CPC and supported by precedents like those from Kerala, Patna, and Madras High Courts. BALAN VS KOUSU - 1983 0 Supreme(Ker) 63T. K. Vijayakumari VS Subhash Mohan, S/o. Kalariparambil Kuttan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 970 This promotes efficient justice by salvaging usable evidence while addressing gaps.
Key Takeaways:- Remittal ≠ Rejection; use for curable defects.- Always record reasons to avoid appeals.- Report remains evidence until final court decision.
This is general guidance based on legal documents; outcomes vary by facts. Seek professional legal counsel for advice tailored to your situation.
References:1. T. K. Vijayakumari VS Subhash Mohan, S/o. Kalariparambil Kuttan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 970: Court's power for second commissions and remittal.2. BALAN VS KOUSU - 1983 0 Supreme(Ker) 63: Core discussion on remittal vs. setting aside.3. Chinmayee Saha VS Renuka Halder - 2015 0 Supreme(Cal) 495: Order XXVI Rules 9-10 authority.4. Laly Joseph @ Laly Sebastian, W/o. K. U. Joseph VS K. U. Francis, S/o. Ulahanna - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 386: Remittal without setting aside.5. Additional cases: JOY CHERIAN Vs GEORGE CHERIAN - 2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46588, M. Ammasayappan VS Muthusamy (Died) - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 3812, Sami Velladan vs Muhammed - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2926.
#CommissionReport #CPC #LegalInsights
without setting aside the earlier commission report. ... In so far as the question as to whether a commission report can be set aside or remitted back, there are divergent decisions. In the decision reported in Yudathadevus v. ... In this case it was held that, an analysis of the question whether the appointment of a Commission without setting aside the previous report#....
The decision cited by the counsel for the respondent may not assist him to say that under no circumstance without setting aside an earlier report, the court can issue a second commission or the same commission to note details which have been omitted by him when he made the first report. ... "Further enquiry to be made" presupposes that an enquiry by the same Commissioner also is possible if the court feels so., If the report of the first Commissioner is foun....
The OA was allowed primarily on the ground that a copy of the inquiry report had not been supplied to the delinquent officer ; and also that the view of the Disciplinary Authority that witnesses should have been summoned by the Inquiry Officer has not found favour with the Tribunal. ... Aggrieved by the fact that despite a finding of the Inquiry Officer in his favour, the Disciplinary Authority had remanded the matter back, without serving a copy of inquiry ....
Aggrieved by the fact that despite a finding of the Inquiry Officer in his favour, the Disciplinary Authority had remanded the matter back, without serving a copy of inquiry report upon the respondent led to the respondent filing the OA before the Tribunal. 5. ... The OA was allowed primarily on the ground that a copy of the inquiry report had not been supplied to the delinquent officer ; and also that the view of the Disciplinary Authority that witnesses should have been summoned by t....
aside. ... The inquiry report falls short of these considerations and the matter has been remitted for inquiry deficient in respect of as to whether the amounts had been held to be proved under the inquiry report dated 28th ... and with the deficient material inquiry had been completed and charges levelled against the petitioner had been p style="position:absolute
According to the petitioners, the report and plan are not useful for resolving the controversy in the suit and the trial court ought to have set aside the Commission report or in the alternative, remitted the report and plan to the Commissioner for ascertaining the matter requested in Ext.P6 application ... P9 application filed by them under Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to set aside Ext.P7 Commis....
So, an analysis of the question whether the appointment of a Commission without setting aside the previous report is permissible, leads to a proposition that, generally, if the previous report is found unacceptable, then without setting it aside, a fresh Commission cannot be appointed, but, if the earlier ... without setting aside the previous report is illegal. ... So much so, i....
So, an analysis of the question whether the appointment of a Commission without setting aside the previous report is permissible, leads to a proposition that, generally, if the previous report is found unacceptable, then without setting it aside, a fresh Commission cannot be appointed, but, if the earlier ... So much so, it is crystal clear that a second Commission to note details which have been omitted by the #HL....
by the Inquiry Officer has not found favour with the Tribunal. ... Aggrieved by the fact that despite a finding of the Inquiry Officer in his favour, the Disciplinary Authority had remanded the matter back, without serving a copy of inquiry report upon the respondent led to the respondent ... The Tribunal has set-aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority ; and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority by observing as u....
by the Inquiry Officer has not found favour with the Tribunal. ... Aggrieved by the fact that despite a finding of the Inquiry Officer in his favour, the Disciplinary Authority had remanded the matter back, without serving a copy of inquiry report upon the respondent led to the respondent ... The Tribunal has set-aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority ; and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority by observing as u....
(iv) Whether it is necessary to set aside the earlier commission report before getting another report? (v) If a conflict arose in between 2 co-equal Bench whether earlier decision or later decision will prevail? If an application to set aside a commission report can be allowed without any further orders?
If the report of the first commissioner is found to be deficient on any point, the proper course would be to direct same commissioner to remedy the defects." "Further inquiry to be made" contemplated by O.26, Rule 10(3) pre-supposes that an enquiry by the same commissioner also is possible if the court feels so. "even the court could direct further enquiry - scrapping of the report which is not proper and examining the Commissioner." (v) In yet another judgment, this Court in the case of K. Viswanathan v. Shanmugham Mudaliar and another reported in 99 L.W. 293, wherein it h....
If the Report of the First Commissioner is found to be deficient on any point, the proper course would be to direct same Commissioner to remedy the defects....." "Further enquiry to be made" contemplated by O.26 R.10(3) C.P.C pre-supposes that an enquiry by the same Commissioner also is possible if the Court feels so.
The selection made by the Commission can be set aside by the Court only if it is found that Commission acted arbitrary, capriciously and malafide and without application of mind. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order directing for enquiry into the selection process without going through the records of the MPSC and the procedure adopted by the MPSC while making the selection of the private Respondents in the writ petition. The Commission is constituted with the person having expertise in different fields.
The Commission is constituted with the person having expertise in different fields. The selection made by the Commission can be set aside by the Court only if it is found that Commission acted arbitrary, capriciously and malafide and without application of mind. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order directing for enquiry into the selection process without going through the records of the MPSC and the procedure adopted by the MPSC while making the selection of the private Respondents in the writ petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
