IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2352 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM, S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 39, BUSINESS, VENKALATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PULAMON P.O., MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 2. BUSHARA BEEVI, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL SALAM, VENKALATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PULAMON P.O., MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 3. ABDUL AZIZ ALIAS ABDUL SALIM, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, WORKING IN L.I.C. VENKALATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PULAMON P.O., MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 4. SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 67 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, VENKALATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PULAMON P.O. MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 5. NABEESA BEEVI, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. SHAMSUDEEN, VENKALATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PULAMON P.O. MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT: ----------------------- CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, USHA MANDIRAM, PULAMON, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 2352 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Kottarakara, in IA 2959/2007 in O.S. 180/2005. It was a petition filed by the plaintiff for remitting the Commissioner's plan and report on the ground that certain points required to be noted, are not noted. It is also seen from the order of the court that there has not been substantial compliance. The whole suit is with respect to a Temple and the particulars regarding the Temple are really necessary for a proper determination. Just because a suit is listed, the court should not have dismissed the application but should have directed the Commissioner to have a time bound inspection and submission of the report. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the points to be noted, namely points 7, 8 & 9, in the Commission application be directed to be noted by the Commissioner and if any additional particular are necessary to be considered by the other side, that also may be noted and reported. This shall be done in a time bound manner. Thereafter the court shall proceed with the trial and disposal of the matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps