IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 849 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/09/2007 IN EA 209/03 IN EP 25/00 IN OS.188/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COUNTER PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------------------------- MOHANAN,S/O.SADANANDAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHAN VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT: PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER ------------------------------------- SAROJINI, W/O.LAKSHMANAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHA N VEEDU, "KARTHIKA", PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 2348/07 IN C.R.P849/07 DISMISSED 12.3.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 849 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Attingal, in EA 209/03 in EP 25/00 in OS 188/97. The court by the said order allowed the execution application and directed delivery of the property shown as 'D E J I D' in the plan. 2. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that no opportunity was given to file objection to the Commissioner's report and the documents, which was relied by the revision petitioner, were not permitted to be considered and that the same resulted in miscarriage of justice. 3. Herd both sides. Filing of objections to the Commissioner's report and consideration of documents, relied upon by the party, are really necessary for a proper determination of the case. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the court below and direct the court to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to file objection to the Commissioner's report and permit the petitioner to produce documents, if it is not already produced, and adduce evidence in support of his respective contentions. Needless to say, the decree holder shall also be permitted to produce documents and adduce evidence, in case he choses to do so. The court below is directed to consider the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps