IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31043 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.282/07 IN OS.2291/2003 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- PARAVATTANI SAMOOHA MADOM, THRIKKUR REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY PARAMESWARAN, S/O.THRIKKUR MADOM T.K.SEETHARAMA IYER, THRIKKUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- WILSON, S/O.KIZHAKKESSERY NARAYANAN, THRIKKUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31043 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to call for the records relating to Ext.P6 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit, directing the court below to dispose of Ext.P6 afresh. ii. to grant an interim order staying the trial of O.S.No.2291/2003 in the Court of the Munsiff, Irinjalakkuda, pending disposal of the writ petition. 2. Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.2291 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. Suit is one for fixation of boundary and the respondent, the plaintiff. Challenge raised in the writ petition is against WPC.31043/09 2 Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the court below declining the request made by the petitioner/2nd defendant to remit a commission report and plan and also production of a sketch by a third party stated to be the prior janmi of the property, to substantiate the objections raised to the report. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. From the submissions made, it is found that the present petitioner/2nd defendant in his written statement has raised a counter claim, which, according to the counsel, was for the reliefs of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. When that be the case, needless to point out that the petitioner should have taken appropriate steps at the appropriate time for production of essential materials necessary to ascertain the suit property as well as his property. Whatever that be, it is noticed that the present report and plan prepared by the Commissioner was WPC.31043/09 3 subsequent to remission of the previous report and plan pursuant to some directions issued by this Court in a previous writ petition. The report and plan through a Commissioner are called for to enable and assist the court in adjudicating the disputes involved. In otherwords, for a fair disposal of the case emerging for consideration. A party objecting such report and plan shall have an opportunity to challenge its merit at the trial. It is open to the petitioner to raise his challenge to the report and plan in the trial of the suit. Reserving his right to do so, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp