IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35528 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.37/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- OTHAYAMANGALATH AJITHA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. VASU, CHEMANCHERY AMSOM, THUVVAKODE DESOM, KOYILANDY THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ MS.K.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PUTHIYAPURAYAIL SHYMALA, 61 YEARS, W/O. PAKMANABHAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOYILANDY THALUK. 2. HEMALAL, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERI AMSOM, AND DESOM, KOYILANDY THALUK. 3. HARILAL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHE,MMANCHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOYILANDY THALUK. 4. HASEENA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.PADMANABHAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOYILANDY THALUK. 5. HABINA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. PADMANABHAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERI AMSOM AND DESOM KOYILANDY THALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35528 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge raised in the writ petition is against an order passed by the learned Munsiff remitting a report and plan prepared by an advocate commissioner directing a fresh report and plan after measuring the property with reference to the documents. Petitioner is the defendant in the suit, O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koyilandi. Suit is one for a perpetual prohibitory injunction and the respondent is the plaintiff. There is no need to remit the commission report which was done on the basis of the objections raised by the plaintiff, is the case of the petitioner for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order passed by the learned Munsuff. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Perusing Ext.P8 order passed by the learned Munsiff with reference to the submissions made and the other exhibits produced I find it will not be proper and appropriate for this Court W.P.(C).No.35528 of 2009 - O 2 to sit in judgment on the merit of a commission report collected in a suit in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction. Learned Munsiff, it appears, found merit in the objections canvassed against the commission report filed, and, accordingly, Ext.P8 order was passed remitting the report and plan directing the commissioner to file a fresh report after measuring out the property with reference to documents. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P8 order. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-