IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 406 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ I.A.2500/2010 IN OS.505/2002 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT-I, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------------- V.S. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.V.B. SAIDUKUTTY, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, NADAKKAVU, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH, SMT.M.MANJU, SRI.K.R.RANJITH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KANAKAMANI K. AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.K. JAYARAJAN, RESIDING AT VALAPPIL THODI HOUSE, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN-673 011. 2. RESMI K, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.K. JAYARAJAN, RESIDING AT VALAPPIL THODI HOUSE, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN-673 011. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.406 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1 st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S.No.505 of 2002, Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode, filed I.A.No.2500 of 2010 to remit the Commissioner's report. The court below dismissed the application. The Original Petition is filed by the defendant challenging that order. 2. The suit was filed in the year 2002. Dissatisfied with the decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal. It is stated that the petitioner/defendant filed a Memorandum of Cross Objection. The appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the case for fresh disposal. Certain directions were also issued. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Appellate Court, the trial court appointed a Commissioner. A surveyor was also appointed to assist the Commissioner. The Commissioner filed a O.P(C).No.406 OF 2011 2 detailed report and plan. The petitioner had filed work memo before the Commissioner. According to the petitioner, the Commissioner did not properly identify the property and he omitted to note very many particulars. 3. The application was opposed by the respondents. The court below considered the objections raised by the petitioner to the Commissioner's report and held that the Commissioner has reported all the relevant facts. The court below also noticed that the petitioner could not point out what exactly the Commissioner omitted to note in the report. The court below was of the view that the attempt of the petitioner is to protract the proceedings. Still, the court below observed in the order thus: “It is further made clear that this order will not stand in the way of this court directing the commissioner to report about further facts if required”. O.P(C).No.406 OF 2011 3 4. The grievance of the petitioner would have been redressed by the aforementioned observation in the order itself. Still, the petitioner is not satisfied and he has filed this Original Petition. I find no ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law justifying interference. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms