Under challenge is Ext.P9 order whereby the court below refused to remit the Commission report.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that Commissioner had not noted certain features and also that the Commission report is defective. He draws also support from the fact that the other side also filed objection to the Commissioners report and in the nature of the things, report ought to have been remitted.
3. The court below has been passed a reasoned order as to why there was no necessity to remit the Commission report as of now. There seems to be no error in that order passed.
4. However, it will be open to both the parties to assail the Commissioners report at the time of adducing evidence and if it is found that the Commissioners report is O.P.(C) No. 2467 of 2014 -2-
not acceptable, the parties will be given an opportunity to file a fresh Commission application.
With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds