IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 1332 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.151/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ GOVINDANKUTTY MENON, AGED 59, S/O VAZHAPPILLY LAKSHMI AMMA, CHEMBUCHIRA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. PRABHAKRAN NAIR, S/O PERUMBILL MADHAVI AMMA, CHEMBUCHIRA DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 680692. 2. AMMINI AMMA @ KUCHUKUTTY AMMA, W/O PRABHAKARAN NAIR, CHEMBUCHIRA DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 680692. 3. VENU, S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, CHAZHIKAD KUNDOOR DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 680 692. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.VENUGOPAL THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- OP(C) No.1332 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 31st December 2010 Judgment This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief : “issue an appropriate order or direction commanding the Sub Court to consider Ext.P4 objections filed against Ext.P3 report and plan and to decide the same and only thereafter to conduct trial in the said suit.” 2. The petitioner is the first plaintiff in OS No.151 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit is one for declaration of title and for other reliefs. It is seen that a Commissioner's report and plan have been prepared in the case. According to the petitioner, there are serious mistakes and errors in the report and plan so prepared. So, he has filed objections to the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the objections filed by him, the suit is going to be listed for trial. It is stated that unless the objections are considered and a OP(C) No.1332/10 2 fresh report and plan are obtained, proper adjudication of the matter may not be possible and it may cause serious prejudice to him. Therefore, the petitioner prays that there may be a direction to the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda to consider the objections filed by him and thereafter, list the suit for trial. 3. The above prayer seems to be only just and proper. The petitioner has averred in the petition that he has serious objections against the commissioner's report and plan, since there are patent mistakes and errors therein. So, he has filed objections against the report and plan. Of course, it could be said that the objections could be considered at the time of trial. But, that would only complicate the matter. So, it would be only just and fair that the objections filed by the petitioner are considered before listing the case for trial. In the result, there will be a direction to the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda to consider the objections filed by the petitioner to the commissioner's report filed in OP(C) No.1332/10 3 OS No.151/05 before listing the matter for trial. But, this will not preclude the trial court from considering if the objections can be considered at the time of trial and reserving the liberty of the petitioner to assail the report and plan then. The OP(C) is disposed of as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta OP(C) No.1332/10 4