A party should be permitted to participate in final decree proceedings and, subject to conditions, object to the commissioner’s report.

The petitioner, respondent No. 8 in Final Decree Proceedings (FDP) No. 3/2020, challenged the City Civil Court’s order dated 10 July 2026, which did not permit her to pursue the proceedings after recording a submission that she had sold her share and had no right to participate.

She contended that summons had been served at her Bengaluru address while she resided in Chennai, preventing her from participating.

Respondents maintained that summons had been duly served, that the petitioner failed to appear, and that the Court Commissioner had submitted a report after affording the parties an opportunity.

The FDP arose from a preliminary decree in a suit instituted in 1989.

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to participate in FDP No. 3/2020 despite the respondents’ contention that she had been afforded an opportunity to participate.

2. Whether the petitioner may be permitted to file objections to the Commissioner’s report, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the petitioner’s application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It applied the procedural principle that a party may be afforded an opportunity to participate in pending final decree proceedings where doing so may assist their effective and complete adjudication; the Trial Court may regulate the filing of objections to a Commissioner’s report by imposing appropriate terms and conditions in accordance with law.

No precedent was cited.

Given the limited nature of the writ proceedings and the need for the Trial Court to determine the substantive issues in the pending FDP, the Court concluded that the petitioner should be allowed to participate.

It considered that her participation could assist effective adjudication and left the merits of the parties’ contentions open for consideration by the Trial Court.

Because participation was permitted, the Court saw no impediment to allowing objections to the Commissioner’s report, while leaving any conditions to the Trial Court.

The long pendency of the proceedings and allegations of delay warranted an expedited schedule.

The Trial Court was directed to permit the petitioner to participate in FDP No. 3/2020, and her Section 151 CPC application was allowed.

The Trial Court may permit her to file objections to the Commissioner’s report on appropriate terms and in accordance with law.

The Trial Court was also directed to conclude the FDP within six months from the next hearing date; all contentions were left open.