IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27488 of 2008(V) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.1.2008 IN IA 6332/2007 IN OS.177/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. LATE P. KUNHAMBU NAIR, RESIDING AT MUNDATGH HOUSE, BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, POST IRIYA, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M. UMMER, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ABBAS RESIDING AT BERIKULAM HOUSE, POST KOLATHUR, CHENGALA VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. P.V. NARAYANAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. PATHIKARA ALAMI, PATHIKARA HOUSE, KUZHIKOOL, MUKKUD, BELUR VILLAGE, IRIYA P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASSARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.27488 OF 2008-V ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.177/2007 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg, which was a suit for injunction simplicitor in respect of plaint A schedule property admeasuring 5 cents, challenges Ext.P6 order dated 14.1.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing his application to remit the commission report and plan dated 12.11.2007. The main objection of the petitioner was that the commissioner has not fixed the survey line properly and that the measurement made by the commissioner was wrong. But the learned Munsiff has observed that the measurement was taken by the commissioner with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor, Hosdurg, as ordered by the court. The court below has also observed that the petitioner was unable to explain how the measurement taken by the commissioner was wrong. The commissioner had also taken into account the physical boundaries available at the site. Merely because the extent found by the commissioner Is not tallying with the extent shown in the plaint, it cannot be straight away said that the commissioner's identification WPC.NO.27488/08 . 2 of the property is not correct. The petitioner is free to adduce other evidence to substantiate his contention that identification of the property by the commissioner is not correct. I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the court below. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR,JUDGE. cl