IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 4451 of 2009(E) ------------------------- OS.75/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 66 YEARS, ANTHEENATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- PHILOMINA, W/O.MATHEW, KOTTRATHUKUDI HOUSE, KANJALLOOR KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.N.SUBRAMANIAM, MR.M.S.NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4451/2009 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/09/2008 IN I.A.906/08 IN OS.75/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF PRELIMINARY JUDGMENT IN O.S.99/1988 DTD.24/09/1990. R1(B): COPY OF JUDGMENT IN A.S.113/2006 DTD. 04/08/2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4451 of 2009 - E --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To set aside Ext.P3 order to secure the ends of justice” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.75 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha. Suit is one for declaration of title, possession and injunction and the respondent is the plaintiff. Resisting the suit claim the petitioner filed a written statement in which among other contentions he disputed the identity of the suit property as well. Respondent/plaintiff applied for an advocate commission to measure out the suit property with the assistance of a surveyor. That application was allowed by the court below vide Ext.P3 order. Correctness and propriety of Ext.P3 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts W.P.(C).No.4451 of 2009 - E 2 and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P3 order impugned in the petition, I find there is no merit in the writ petition. To sustain the suit claim the plaintiff is bound to prove the identify of the plaint property which was disputed by the petitioner/defendant in his written statement. For that purpose, plaintiff has sought for appointment of a commission to measure out the property with reference to his documents and survey records with the assistance of a surveyor. That was allowed by the court. The defendant who has raised a contention disputing the identity of the property cannot raise any objection to the appointment of a commission. The writ petition lacks in merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-