IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1487 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.52/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------ JAYABALAN.P., AGED 46 YEARS, PARAKKIL HOUSE, S/O.LATE GOVINDAN EZHUTHACHAN, KANIYAMPURAM P.O., OTTAPPALAM-679104. BY ADV. SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DR.SHANMUGHAN, S/O.VELAPPAN, 'ANUGRAHA', KANIYAMPURAM P.O., OTTAPPALAM-679104. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C)No.1487 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, the defendant in O.S.No.52 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Ottappalam, filed I.A.No.2264 of 2010 to set aside the Commissioner's report and plan. The court below dismissed that application as per Ext.P4 order dated 10.3.2011, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. The Commissioner submitted a report and sketch dated 24th February, 2009. That report was remitted to the Commissioner to note certain aspects. The Commissioner submitted a second report and a sketch. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the report of the Commissioner. It was alleged that the reports submitted by the Commissioner are contradictory to each other. Certain other objections were also raised. The court below held, on a perusal of the Commissioner's report, that no grounds are made out to set aside the Commissioner's report and accordingly, the application was O.P(C)No.1487 OF 2011 2 dismissed. 3. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law warranting interference. 4. In Kanaran Nair v. Madhavan Nair (1996(1) KLT 162), a Division Bench held that the order passed declining to set aside the Commissioner's report is only interlocutory in nature and nothing contained in it would trammel the trial court from taking a different view if otherwise satisfied at a subsequent stage. It was also held that the parties are entitled to use other evidence including materials elicited through examination of the Commissioner as a witness for satisfying the court that the findings in the report are faulty. The order impugned would not preclude the court at the time of trial from considering the acceptability or otherwise of the report submitted by the Commissioner. O.P(C)No.1487 OF 2011 3 With the above observations, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms