AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.—Heard both sides.
This revision at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioner is against the order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Court below in Title Suit No. 7 of 1983 whereby the Court below allowed the application dated 18.11.2002 filed on behalf of the defendant. The main point raised on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner is that an earlier application filed in that behalf had been rejected in 1989. The present application was, therefore, barred by the principles of res judicata.
After all, when the Court appoints a Survey Commissioner for local inspection, the Court is only gathering material that may be relevant for enabling it to render a decision more satisfactory to its conscience. The report of the Commissioner is after all only an item of evidence subject to the rights of the parties to establish facts which would contradict that report, or to cross-examine the Commissioner and bring out other relevant facts which may have impact on the matters in controversy. Especially in the context of amendment of the CPC by the 2002 Act, there is no scope for interference in such a matter. On the whole I am not satisfied that any interference is warranted. The order passed by the Court below is confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.