IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 828 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. SIVADASAN, AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF KARAPPAN, NADUVATHADATHIL HOUSE, PLERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673 014. 2. CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, SON OF NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ARAYANGODATH PARAMBATH, KIZHAKE KELAN VEETTIL, PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 3. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, RESIDING AT ARAYANGODATH PARAMBATH PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 4. KARIYATHAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, RESIDING AT KOLAPARAMBATH, ARAYANGODATH PARAMBATH PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 5. KUNJAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MUTHORAN, MELEDATH HOUSE, P.O.KAYALAM, PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 6. BALAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, RESIDING AT PONAMPURATH, ARAYANGOTU PARAMBATH PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 7. MADHAVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.THATHIYAN, MEPARAMBATH HOUSE, PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 8. GANGADHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.THATHIYAN, MEPARAMBATH HOUSE, PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 9. PERAVAN, AGED 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT THADATHIL METHAN, MEPARAMBATH HOUSE, PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW O.P.(C)NO.828/2011 RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. HARIDASAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHA PANICKER, PATTARUMADHATHIL, PARUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 024. 2. VANAJAKSHI AMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, D/O.PADMANABHA PANICKER, PATTARUMADHATHIL, PARUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 024. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P.(C)No.828 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28 th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners, the defendants in O.S.No.509 of 2007 challenge the order dated 22 nd December, 2010 in I.A.No.5062 of 2010 passed by the court below, by which the court below remitted the report and plan to the Commissioner with a direction to fix the western boundary of the plaint A schedule property. 2. The Commissioner was deputed in the case, who inspected the property with the assistance of the Survey Officials. The plaint schedule property was identified by him and the boundaries were shown. It would appear that the plaintiff did not raise any objection regarding the fixation of western boundary of the property by the Commissioner. However, during the examination of the Commissioner, questions were put to him to show that he did not fix the western boundary of the O.P.(C)No.828 OF 2011 2 plaint schedule property. This necessitated the filing of I.A.No.5062 of 2010 by the defendants. The court below thought that in order to adjudicate upon the disputes involved in the case effectually and completely, it is necessary to get a report from the Commissioner. The order passed by the court below is legal and proper. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that both parties will have an opportunity to file objections to the Commissioner's report. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms