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. 836 of 2011(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2011 IN IA 127/11 IN OS.231/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------- ROSAMMA, W/O.JOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, NIRAPPEL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PERINGAZHA, MARADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. JOHN, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIRAPPELPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA, MANAKAD P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584. 2. THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O.NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KUDAPPANAKUNNEL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA, MANAKAD P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584. 3. JOSEPH JOHN, S/O.NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, CHATHANCODE HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685566. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.(C).No.836 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.231 of 2007, on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Thodupuha, is aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.127 of 2011. 2. The suit was filed for fixation of boundary of the plaint schedule property. A Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the property with the help of the survey officials and submitted report and plan. The petitioner filed an objection dated 17.5.2010. The only objection raised by her was that when the Commissioner measured the property, he did not take measurement from the survey stone on the south western side of the property and thereby, the measurement was not taken properly. It is stated in the objection that the Commissioner's report and O.P.(C) No.836/2011 2 sketch may be accepted subject to the objection. The petitioner did not file any application either to set aside the Commissioner's report or to remit the same. 3. When the suit was listed, the petitioner filed I.A.No.127 of 2011 to appoint another Commissioner to fix the western boundary of the plaint schedule property. The court below, by the order impugned, dismissed the application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Joy Cherian vs. George Cherian (2009 (3) KLT 64) and contended that even without setting aside the Commissioner's report, another Commissioner can be appointed. I do not think that the decision in Joy Cherian vs. George Cherian (2009 (3) KLT 64) applies to the facts of the present case. Cogent reasons have been stated by the court below to O.P.(C) No.836/2011 3 dismiss the application. No error of law or error of jurisdiction is established. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl