Article 227 intervention is unwarranted where a commission report merely assists adjudication in the pending suit.

The respondent-plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 16/2023 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udalguri, seeking declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction over land measuring 2 kathas 13½ lechas covered by Dag Nos. 416 and 466 of P.P. Nos. 388 and 361, claiming title under a registered sale deed dated 9 March 2022.

The plaintiff alleged that, when he visited the land on 7 February 2023 to commence construction, the defendants had erected fencing over it.

The petitioners-defendants denied the plaintiff’s claim and asserted possession over 13 lechas covered by Dag Nos. 466 and 467 of P.P. No. 388 since before 1990, allegedly on the basis of an unregistered sale deed.

Although the suit was at the stage of framing issues, the Trial Court’s order dated 21 November 2023 directed the Circle Officer, Harisingha, to depute a Lat Mandal for demarcation and directed the Tangla Police Station to provide armed constables to accompany the Advocate Commissioner.

The Trial Court subsequently accepted the Advocate Commissioner’s demarcation report by order dated 6 December 2023 and directed that it be kept on record, while permitting the parties to cross-examine the Commissioner and seek rectification or modification.

The Advocate Commissioner had, in fact, been appointed in Misc. (J) Case No. 14/2023, arising from the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction.

Whether the Trial Court acted with jurisdictional error or committed a grave procedural illegality by taking on record, in the main title suit, an Advocate Commissioner’s report prepared pursuant to an order passed in the temporary-injunction proceeding.

Whether the Trial Court’s order dated 21 November 2023, directing the Circle Officer and police authorities to assist in demarcation, was illegal or invalid merely because the directions were recorded in the main suit instead of Misc. (J) Case No. 14/2023.

Whether the circumstances justified interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate or revisional, jurisdiction on the High Court; interference is warranted only where the subordinate court acted without jurisdiction, committed a patent jurisdictional or legal error, or caused manifest miscarriage of justice.

In Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319, the Supreme Court held that a litigant has no absolute right to invoke Article 227 and that mere erroneous decision-making is insufficient absent grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of power or grave injustice.

The Court also considered the CPC provisions concerning local investigation and commissions, including Sections 75 and 151 and Order 26 Rule 9, as well as the provisions relating to temporary injunctions and compromise under Orders 39 and 23 CPC, in the context of the petitioner’s objections.

A Commissioner’s report is evidentiary material assisting adjudication and does not, by itself, amount to a decree or compromise where the suit remains pending and the parties retain the opportunity to challenge it through evidence and cross-examination.

The High Court declined to examine the legality of the original order appointing the Advocate Commissioner in Misc. (J) Case No. 14/2023 because that order was not under challenge and an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was already pending against it.

Since the suit involved disputed identity, location and boundaries, the Commissioner’s report could assist the Trial Court in appreciating the controversy along with the oral and documentary evidence.

The order dated 6 December 2023 merely took the report on record; it neither decreed the suit, recorded a compromise, closed the evidence, nor conclusively determined title or possession.

The parties were expressly permitted to cross-examine the Commissioner and seek correction or modification.

Consequently, the report’s placement in the suit record did not cause grave injustice or constitute a jurisdictional error warranting Article 227 intervention.

As to the order dated 21 November 2023, the Court accepted that the directions to the Circle Officer, police authorities and Superintendent of Police were mistakenly recorded in the main suit rather than in the connected Misc. (J) case.

However, the Court characterized this as a procedural irregularity, not an illegality invalidating the order, particularly because the substantive order in the Misc. (J) case was not before the Court for review.

The challenge to the orders dated 21 November 2023 and 6 December 2023 was therefore dismissed.

The Court clarified that the portion of the 21 November 2023 order directing the Circle Officer, the Officer-in-Charge of Tangla Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, Udalguri, to assist with demarcation should be treated as part of the order dated 21 November 2023 in Misc. (J) Case No. 14/2023, and not as part of the main Title Suit No. 16/2023.

Any interim order was vacated.