Under challenge is Ext.P9 order, whereby, the court below found it unnecessary to set aside the Commission report since the court below was of the opinion that all the matters that had been sought for have been reported by the Commissioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the suit property was not identified by the Commissioner and the Commissioner has also reported that she could not locate the survey stones. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that unless and until the survey stones are located and proper measurements are taken, the Commission report would be of no use.
3. But the court below has considered this question in detail and has come to the conclusion that since the properties have been identified in the presence of the O.P.(C) No. 2237 of 2014 -2-
parties and the Village Officer was also present at the time of inspection, the Commissioner has identified the property with respect to the boundaries found on site and it has been noticed by the Commission that boundaries found on site tally with the boundaries given in the plaint. The court below was therefore of the opinion that for the present that would be sufficient and it will be inappropriate to set aside the Commission report at this point of time.
4. It is trite that if the Commission report is not set aside now, that will be a subject matter of issue at the time of trial of the suit and in case, the court finds that the Commission report is not acceptable, there is no reason to believe that the aggrieved party will not be given an opportunity to take out a fresh Commission so as to vindicate their grievances.
This petition is disposed of observing that during trial, if it is found that the Commission report is not helpful or is inadequate, the aggrieved party will be given an opportunity O.P.(C) No. 2237 of 2014 -3-
to move the court for issuance of fresh Commission in accordance with law.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds