IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22239 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.4347/08 IN OS.374/2008 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.RAGHAVAN, S/O.CHATHU, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUVATHUR PAAMBA, PADINHATTUMURI ASMOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS. MRV.V.SURENDRAN, MR.P.A.HARISH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PRAMEELA, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT ULLATT PARAMBA, KASABA AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. P.VISWAN, S/O.CHATHU, RESIDING AT PUVATHUR PARAMBA, PADINHATTUMURI AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. P.DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT PUVATHUR PARAMBA, PADINHATTUMURI AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22239 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside Ext.P6 order of the learned Munsiff. ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the learned Munsiff to give an opportunity to the petitioner to procure the presence of the commissioner so as to examine him pursuant to the orders in I.A.No.4348/2008.” 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.374/2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court I, Kozhikode. Suit is one for injunction. Petitioner/first defendant filed objections to the commission report, which was posted for enquiry. Presumably for the reason, steps were not taken for examining the commissioner his application for setting aside the report was turned town and case was included in the special list for trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is included in the special list for trial on 10.8.2009. The order challenged in the writ petition shows that the application for W.P.(C).No.22239 of 2009 - O 2 setting aside the commission report was dismissed for the reason that the applicant was absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant was represented by his counsel, but, service could not be effected on the advocate commissioner since he is not having regular practice. Whatever that be, since the case has been included in the special list for trial, at this stage, it is not proper for this court to give any direction to the court below as desired by the petitioner. However, I make it clear that if any application is moved by the petitioner on or before the date the case is listed for trial, the court below shall consider that application and pass appropriate orders on its merit. Ext.P6 order will not stand in the way of the court in permitting the petitioner to examine the commissioner if he can secure the presence of the commissioner without causing any delay in the completion of the trial of the suit. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is closed. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-