Judgment :- 1. Narration of facts of writ petition will cover the circumstances under which the revision has been fled. Therefore, a separate narration of the facts in the C.R.P. is not necessary. 2. In the writ petition, petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records or the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2 of 1994. L.A.3, dated 10.7.1995 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. 3. Writ petitioner, along with his brother N.Chandrasekaran (2nd respondent in C.R.P.), purchased garden land of an extent of 7 acres 36 cents in Survey No.385/1, in Chitragupthanpalayam Village, Dharapuram, along with another property of an extent of 3 acres 42 cents in Survey No.388/C, for Rs.31,000 from its previous owners. Respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition purchased 2 acres 66 cents in Survey No.385/1 and another 2 acres 81 cents in Survey No.385/2 along with well and motor as per sale deed 31.5.1978. Whileso, the property in Survey No.285/1 was subdivided in the year 1980 as 385/ 1 A, 385/1B, 385/1C and 385/1D. At the time of subdivision, S.No.385/lC was registered in the name of the petitioner and his brother, and since then, though the extent purchased by them was 7 acres 36 cents, it is wrongly shown as 6 acres 45 cents only. The deficiency of 91 cents was added to the property of respondents 3 and 4. Even though they had purchased only 2 acres 66 cents in S.No.385/1. The extent of property in their possession was shown far in excess and it was allotted a separate sub division number as Survey No.385/lB. The petitioner after finding that there is deficiency in the survey records in view of the sub-division, filed a suit as O.S.No.454/91, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Dharapuram, against respondents 3 and 4 for a declaration that they are entitled to 91 cents from the property in Survey No.385/lB now sub-divided in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and for recovery’ of possession of that piece of land. In that suit, respondents 3 and 4 filed a written statement contending that the property has been sub-divided and regarding 91 cents of land which is sought to be recovered, they have prescribed title by adverse possession. They justified the sub-division and contended that they are entitled to 91 cents. 4. In that suit, respondents 3 and 4 filed a written statement contending that the property has been sub-divided and regarding 91 cents of land which is sought to be recovered, they have prescribed title by adverse possession. They justified the sub-division and contended that they are entitled to 91 cents. 4. Thereafter, the respondents 3 and 4 filed another suit as O.S.No.105 of 1992, on the file of the same court, for a declaration that they are entitled to 3 acres and 5 cents of land in Survey No.385/1B, contending that the southern boundary of their land is ‘Karai Vaikkal’, and for consequential injunction. The suit was also filed on the ground that they have prescribed title to the excess area than stated in the sale deed: Petitioner and his brother filed written statement in that case. Subsequently, an application was filed by respondents 3 and 4 to permit them to withdraw the suit, and the same was allowed permitting them to file a separate suit on the same cause of action. Thereafter, respondents 3 and 4 filed another suit as O.S.No.469 of 1994 for declaration of their title to the suit property of an extent of 3 acres 12 1/2 cents in Survey No.385/1B and for consequential injunction. Petitioner and his brother have filed a written statement and are contesting the suit. Petitioners filed I.A.747 of 1995 for appointment of Commissioner. Suffice it to say that ultimately the various proceedings mat came up before this Court for consideration in C.R.P.Nos.1368 of 1995 and 145 of 1996 were disposed of by a common order passed in those two revisions. Shivaraj Patil, J., as per his Order, dated 20.6.1996, directed that alil the properties covered by the various sale deed both in favour of petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 will be measured and 91 cents which is the subject matter of the dispute also will be located. It was directed that the same Commissioner will be deputed (for the same purpose. The question whether the petitioner and his brother have obtained title to 7 acres 3 6 cents, whether respondents are entitled to 3 acres 12 1/2 cents, and whether they have prescribed title to 91 cents, were all directed to be decided on the basis of evidence. The question whether the petitioner and his brother have obtained title to 7 acres 3 6 cents, whether respondents are entitled to 3 acres 12 1/2 cents, and whether they have prescribed title to 91 cents, were all directed to be decided on the basis of evidence. But the Commission was directed to be issued for locating 91 cents of land which was found to be deficient consequent to the sub-division. 5. The Commissioner, with the help of Surveyor, measured the property and filed a Report and Plan before the trial Court. Objections were raised to the, Report by the petitioner and his brother contending that the direction in the C.R.Ps. has not been complied with, and 91 cents of land which was directed to be demarcated has not been done by the Commissioner and the Surveyor has only copied the sub-division plan which is challenged in the suit. They wanted the Commissioner to re-inspect the property for the purpose of re-locating the same. The same was seriously opposed by respondents 3 and 4, and, as per the impugned Order, the Court below held that the Commissioner has to re-visit the property and that is necessary for the proper disposal of the suit. The same is challenged in C.R.P.No. 992 of 1997 by respondents 3 and 4 inline writ petition. 6. Whileso, respondents 3 and 4 moved an application before the 1st respondent in the writ petition, to grant planning permission. On coming to know about the said application, petitioners moved a representation before the 1st respondent stating that in respect of the subject matter regarding which planning permission is sought for, litigation is pending and, therefore, planning permission should not be granted. The same was not replied by the 1st respondent. But at the same time, petitioner felt doubts in view of the conduct of respondents 3 and 4, since they began to prepare a lay-out and divide the entire property into several plots. On enquiry, it was found that the first respondent has issued a letter to respondents 3 and 4 that their case for planning permission will be considered only when the property is divided into various plots and necessary roads are laid; and a road is also gifted to the first respondent. It is in view of that letter, respondents 3 and 4 to divide the property into various plots by providing roads, etc. It is in view of that letter, respondents 3 and 4 to divide the property into various plots by providing roads, etc. The writ petition is filed to quash the letter of the first respondent directed to respondents 3 and 4. 7. When the writ petition came for admission, learned counsel submitted that C.R.P.No.992 of 1997 is inter-connected and, therefore, they wanted the civil revision petition also to be heard along with the writ petition. After obtaining permission from the Chief Justice, the revision petition was also posted before me for being heard along with the writ petition. 8. After having heard learned counsel on both sides, I reel that C.R.P. No.932 of 1997 is without merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons. 9. Both parties agree that they are bound by the earlier Order of this Court in C.R.P.Nos.1368 of 1995 and 145 of 1996. In para 8 of that order, the learned Judge has said thus: “As far as C.R.P.No.1368 of 1995 is concerned, although the claim is made in respect of 91 cents alone by the respondents in O.S.No.44 of 1991 having regard to the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the respondents have claimed that the petitioners have encroached upon 91 cents of land which belonged to the respondents. The petitioners claimed that there is no encroachment. Even if there is encroachment, they have preferred title by adverse possession. Both the parties claimed their title to the properties on the basis of documents of title. This being the position, whether there is encroachment or not and to what extent the parties are entitled to, could be appropriately appreciated if both the lands are surveyed, measured and the Commissioner submits his report.” In para 9, the learned Judge has further said thus: “In the absence of any specification of 91 cents, as contended, it is all the more necessary that the Commissioner so appointed should measure the entire extent of land claimed by the respondents to the extent of 7 acres 36 cents and so also the entire extent of land of the petitioners measuring 3 acres and 12 1/2 cents. I must make it clear’ that whether the petitioners are entitled for 3 acres and 12 1/2 cents and the respondents are entitled for 7 acres and 36 cents, whether there is encroachment of 97 cents and whether the title was perfected by adverse possession of this portion of the land, are all matters to be decided by the trial Court on the basis of evidence. This order is only for the purpose of clarifying the position as to the work to be carried out by the Commissioner so appointed. The same Commissioner who is appointed earlier to carry out the {commission with the assistance of a Surveyor in respect of both the lands as indicated above an submit his report. It is open to the parties to urge with regard to their contentions in the trial court as to the claims.” From a reading of the above extracts, it is clear that the 91 cents of land also will have to be located. In this connection, it may also be noted that the dispute itself is the consequence of an alleged wrong subdivision. Naturally, the sub-division itself cannot be the basis for a report. Properties will have to be measured on the basis of the original Survey and also on the basis of boundaries described in the documents. As regards the present report, the complaint of the petitioners is that copying of sub-division plan is not going to advance the case of either party, and the dispute cannot be resolved. By the impugned Order, the lower court has only said that interest of justice requires that Commissioner should revisit the property and file his supplementary report. By identifying the 91 cents of land, it is only a piece of evidence as to the location. Whether the 91 cents of land is actually covered by the sale deed of the petitioners, and whether by a wrong sub-division, the same was added to the property of respondents 3 and 4 and whether they have prescribed title by adverse possession are all matters to be decided only during trial. Petitioners cannot be prevented from adducing evidence which is permitted by this Court. 10. The impugned Order is not a ‘case decided’ under Sec.115, C.P.C. A direction was given to the Commissioner to file a Supplementary Report. In such a case, I do not think a revision under Sec.115, C.P.C. is maintainable. Petitioners cannot be prevented from adducing evidence which is permitted by this Court. 10. The impugned Order is not a ‘case decided’ under Sec.115, C.P.C. A direction was given to the Commissioner to file a Supplementary Report. In such a case, I do not think a revision under Sec.115, C.P.C. is maintainable. It may be noted that no final orders have been passed even in the Commissioners Report. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10, O.26, C.P.C. says thus: “The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation.” Sub-rule (3) reads thus: “Where the Court is for any reason is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as. it shall think fit.” In view of these provisions under O.26, Rule 10, C.P.C. the Court is empowered to direct the Commissioner to file a supplementary report. It is not disputed by respondents 3 and 4 that the surveyor has not identified the 91 cents of land and he has only copied the sub-division plan. That was not the purpose of his inspection. He has to identify the property after measuring the same on the basis of boundaries, documents and also On the basis of original survey. When the Commissioner has not complied with the direction of the Court, and the Court has exercised only the power of remitting the matter directing the Commissioner to file a supplementary report and plan, it is only taking a piece of evidence and not adjudicating a right. If that be so, as held in Mytheen Kunju v. Azeez Kunju , (1992)1 K.L.T. 713 , it is not a ‘case decided’, and hence the revision is not maintainable. In that case, a learned Judge of the Kerala High Court held thus: “The report made and by the Commission for local investigation has the status of evidence and nothing beyond that. In that case, a learned Judge of the Kerala High Court held thus: “The report made and by the Commission for local investigation has the status of evidence and nothing beyond that. All that the Commissioners report and evidence does is to bring before the court, a set offacts which are subject to the same process of evaluation, acceptance or rejection by the Court, as any other piece of evidenceis. The report and the evidence of the Commission is a vehicle through which the court proceeds towards the determination of a right or obligation arising in the suit or proceeding. It is an instrument which helps in decision making and therefore it is not the same thing as the decision itself. An order appointing commission or refusing to set aside the commission, is a step in the process of elucidation matters in dispute before the court. Such a step does not decide or adjudicate upon any right. Therefore, such an order is not a “case which has been decided. In A.Narayani v. Kittan alias Krisknan A.Narayani v. Kittan alias Krisknan A.Narayani v. Kittan alias Krisknan , (1996)2 K.L.J 489, it has been held that under O.26, Rule 10, C.P.C., a Commissioners report is considered only as a piece of evidence and it is not binding on Court and the same does not affect the rights of parties. It was further held that as against the setting aside a report, accepting a report or refusing to set aside a report, a revision under Art.227 of me Constitution of India is not maintainable. In view of these decisions and also on merits, I hold that the revision petition, namely, CR.P.No. 992 of 1997 is liable to be dismissed, and I do so. 11. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the letter of the first respondent whereby he has directed respondents 3 and 4 to prepare a lay-out and also gift a property, etc., while taking into consideration the application for planning permission. Any transaction by respondents 3 and 4, whether it be with the Development Authority or with a third party will be subject to the result of the suit. Any transaction by respondents 3 and 4, whether it be with the Development Authority or with a third party will be subject to the result of the suit. Even if respondents 3 and 4 execute a gift, in favour of the first respondent, and on the basis of planning permission, if any plot is sold to a third person, all these will be subject to the litigation pending between the parties. I do not think, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Order. But, by way of abundant caution, it is better that the public is also put to notice about the pendency of the litigation. If respondents 3 and 4 intend to deal with the property which is the subject matter of these two litigations, they are directed to do so only after informing the first respondent or any third party that in respect of the property, a litigation is pending, and such a declaration must be made in all the documents and dealings entered into by them. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above, however without any order as to costs. Connected W.M.Ps. and C.M.Ps. are all dismissed.