IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20299 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.488/2000 of I ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ MATHEW CHACKO, S/O.K.M.CHACKO, RESIDING AT KANIKUNNEL HOUSE, AMBOORI VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR. POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. MARIYAKUTTY CHACKO, W/O.K.M.CHACKO, KANIKUNNEL HOUSE, AMBOORI VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. MARRY JACOB, D/O.K.M.CHACKO, PONNEDUTHAKUZHIYIL, KOTTAKADA, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE. 3. THRESSYAMMA JOHN, CHERAYIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKADA, KULATHUMMEL VILLAGE. 4. PHILOMINA, D/O.K.M.CHACKO, ILLAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, AMBOORI VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 5. LOOSY JOSEPH, D/O.K.M.CHACKO, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBOORI VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 6. AUGUSTINE CHACKO, S/O.K.M.CHACKO, KANIKUNNEL HOUSE, KOOTTAPPU DESOM, AMBOORI VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ WP(C).No. 20299 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.488/2000 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. P2: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.488/2000. P2(A): COPY OF THE 'SURVEY PLAN' IN O.S.488/2000. P3: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION WITH AFFIDAVIT IN O.S.488/2000. P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 4.6.2008. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.2646/2008 IN O.S.488/2000 DATED 6.2.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE kkms/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 20299 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of July 2009. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit-P5 order, for the interest of justice, and set aside the Final Decree Judgment dated 21.05.2008 in O.S.488/2000 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara-1; ii) To issue a writ, order or direction declaring that, the petitioner is entitled to file objection to Exhibits-P2 and P2(a) and have right for proper representation and hearing; and iii) Such other reliefs, whatever it may be, this Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.488/2000 of the Additional Munsiff's Court-1, Neyyattinkara. Suit is for partition in which a preliminary decree was passed on 28.06.2002 allotting 1/3 share to the first plaintiff and the rest, 2/3 shares, equally among plaintiffs 2 to 6 and the defendants. An appeal was preferred against the decree by the defendants but the decree of the court below was confirmed. An application was moved for final decree by the plaintiffs including the second W.P.(C). No. 20299 OF 2009 2 plaintiff in which a Commissioner was appointed who after conducting inspection and measuring the property with the help of a surveyor, filed a report and plan. Accepting that commission report and plan to which none of the parties filed any objection, the court below passed a final decree. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application for reviewing that judgment contending that he did not get opportunity to raise objections to the commission report and plan. The counter petitioners in that I.A. resisted that application filing objections. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides found no merit in the review petition moved by the petitioner and it was dismissed. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of that order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and in the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the materials produced with the petition and perusing the impugned order, copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence it is dispensed with. The W.P.(C). No. 20299 OF 2009 3 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his only grievance is that no opportunity was provided to ventilate his objections to the commission report and plan, for which, setting aside the impugned order, the court below be directed to hear the petitioner providing him an opportunity to substantiate his objections. I find that the petitioner is one among the plaintiffs and the application for moving the final decree had been moved by him along with the other plaintiffs and they are all represented by a counsel in common. Till the final decree was passed, petitioner was represented by the same counsel and after the passing of the final decree, it is submitted, she has engaged another counsel for representing her case. None of the parties including the other plaintiffs had any objection to the report and plan. This court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction over subordinate court will not be justified in interfering with a decree passed by the Court for the reasons canvassed by the petitioner when he has an alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal against the final decree, as provided by the Code of Civil Procedure. If at all opportunity was denied to raise objections to the commission report and W.P.(C). No. 20299 OF 2009 4 plan, that too can be canvassed in such appeal, if so preferred. Reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the merit of the decree as provided by law, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE kkms/