9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for remitting the Commissioner's report and plan under Order XXVI, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Trial Court's decision to dismiss the petition for remitting the report. 3. Invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the trial Court's decision. 4. Interpretation of Order XXVI, Rule 10 regarding the Commissioner's report and evidence. 5. Discretion of the trial Court in ordering a fresh commission. 6. Scope of challenging the Commissioner's report and the trial Court's decision under Article 227. 7. High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Analysis: The case involved a petition filed by the Plaintiff seeking an injunction against the Defendant from trespassing on the property. The Defendant had applied for a commission, which led to the Commissioner's report being submitted. Dissatisfied with the report, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI, Rule 10 to remit the report, alleging inaccuracies by the Commissioner. The Trial Court, after examining the report and plan, found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition. The Plaintiff then approached the High Court under Article 227 challenging the Trial Court's decision. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 10, emphasizing that the Commissioner's report and evidence form part of the record and are open to examination by the Court or parties. The Court highlighted the Trial Court's discretion in ordering a fresh commission if dissatisfied with the proceedings. It clarified that the acceptance of the report does not prevent parties from challenging it through cross-examination or additional evidence. Regarding the invocation of Article 227, the High Court stressed that its supervisory jurisdiction is limited to ensuring the subordinate Court functions within its authority. The Court should not act as an appellate body or correct mere errors without grave miscarriage of justice. The High Court noted that the Trial Court's decision should not be interfered with unless it is perverse, exceeds jurisdiction, or commits manifest injustice. In this case, the High Court found that the Trial Court had properly considered the objections and concluded that there was no justification to remit the report. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, stating that no manifest injustice had occurred, and declined to grant the relief sought by the Plaintiff. The High Court emphasized that the Commissioner's report is only one piece of evidence, subject to rejection by the Trial Court at a later stage. Ultimately, the Original Petition was dismissed by the High Court.
|
