IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 OP(C).No. 4254 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2594/2011 IN OS.294/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- GNANASUBRAMANIA SENTHILRAJ,S/O.RAMASWAMY KOUNDER, RESIDING AT MOONGILMADA, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.MADHAVAN UNNI SRI.S.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KANTHASWAMY S/O.KALIYAPPA KOUNDER, VANNAMADA, MOONGILMADA, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 101. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.4254/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IA NO.2594/2011 IN OS NO.294/2002 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR DTED 24/11/2011. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT OF RESPONDENT DATED 29/11/2011. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF, CHITTUR IN IA NO.2594/2011 IN OS NO.294/2002. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.4254 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Ext.P3, order dated 30.11.2011 on I.A.No.2594 of 2011 in O.S.No.294 of 2002 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chittur is under challenge. The decrees and judgments of the trial and first appellate courts were set aside by this Court in R.S.A. No.503 of 2004 and the matter was remitted to the trial court with direction to identify the suit property with reference to the description of C schedule in Ext.A6, document. Pursuant to that direction trial court appointed an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner is yet to file his report. At that time, petitioner filed I.A.No.2594 of 2011 to issue a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to report whether house No.1/448 and compound mentioned in the plaint schedule are situated within the boundary mentioned in the C schedule to Ext.A6, document. That application was dismissed by learned Munsiff by Ext.P3, order which is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel submitted that identification of property as prayed in I.A.No.2594 of 2011 is necessary. It is pointed out that petitioner has a further request that the Advocate Commissioner should mark the property referred in I.A.No.2594 of 2011 in the plan he is to submit. 3. I have gone through Ext.P3, order. Learned Munsiff has observed, OP(C)No.4254/2011 2 “So at present it is not necessary again to give direction to the Advocate Commissioner to report as to whether the plaint schedule property on the basis of four boundaries along with the house and the house compound will be comprised in C-schedule of Ext.A6, document. The commissioner will be measuring and ascertaining as to whether the plaint schedule property is covered by Ext.A6, document. So I find that there is no necessity at all to give direction to the commissioner as prayed in the petition.” Learned Munsiff has also referred to the direction this Court has given in R.S.A. No.503 of 2004 to identify the suit property with reference to the description of C schedule in Ext.A6, document. Learned Munsiff is of the view that the Advocate Commissioner has been given direction to that effect and before the Advocate Commissioner submits any report a further direction is not required. I do not find reason to interfere with the said view of learned Munsiff. Original Petition is closed without prejudice to other rights if any of petitioner after the Advocate Commissioner submits his report and plan. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks