An Advocate Commissioner’s deficient report may be scrapped and fresh inspection ordered.

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 448 of 2022 seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and mandatory injunction.

In I.A. No. 2 of 2022, she obtained an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, survey, and measure the property with the assistance of a Surveyor and to submit a report with a plan and sketch.

The Commissioner submitted a report, but it did not record the measurements of the property and stated that the defendants had not encroached upon the plaintiff’s property.

The plaintiff therefore filed I.A. No. 5 of 2024 seeking to scrap the report.

The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri dismissed that application, holding that the plaintiff had already filed objections, that the Commissioner could be examined as a witness, and that the report would only constitute a piece of evidence.

The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Court below erred in refusing to scrap the Advocate Commissioner’s report despite the report failing to contain the measurements specifically directed by the Court?

2. Whether the Commissioner exceeded the proper scope of inspection by giving a finding on the ultimate issue of encroachment, thereby defeating the purpose of the commission?

3. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 and direct appointment of a fresh Advocate Commissioner?

The High Court applied the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to correct a perverse interlocutory order.

It reiterated the principle that an Advocate Commissioner’s report will not be scrapped merely upon the request of a party; such relief is justified only when the Court is dissatisfied with the report.

Although a Commissioner’s report is ordinarily only a piece of evidence and does not bind the trial court, the report must conform to the terms of the commission and assist the Court in elucidating the physical features, measurements, or other matters for which the Commissioner was appointed.

The Court also referred to CRP (PD) No. 2611 of 2024, dated 19 July 2024, for the principle that a Commissioner’s report is not ordinarily liable to be scrapped merely because a party disputes its contents.

The High Court found that the Commissioner had failed to perform the central task assigned by the order in I.A. No. 2 of 2022—namely, to survey and measure the property and submit a report with a plan and sketch.

The absence of measurements rendered the report materially deficient.

Further, by stating that the defendants had not encroached upon the plaintiff’s property, the Commissioner had expressed a conclusion on the substantive dispute rather than confining the report to physical inspection and objective measurements.

Therefore, this was not a case of a party merely seeking to discard an unfavourable report; the report itself was unsatisfactory and had defeated the purpose for which the Commissioner was appointed.

The trial court consequently acted perversely in declining to scrap it merely on the ground that objections had been filed and that the Commissioner could be examined as a witness.

It directed the trial court to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner, who was required to inspect and measure the property in the presence of both parties and submit a report with a sketch and plan within four weeks from receipt of the High Court’s order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.