IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22073 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OS.317/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. MOHANAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM. 2. SUBHASH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, DO. DO. 3. PONNAPPAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, DO. DO. 4. RADHAPPAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, DO. DO. 5. BOSE, S/O.RAGHAVAN, DO. DO. 6. IJAPPAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, DO. DO. 7. SUDHARMA, D/O.RAGHAVAN, DO. DO. 8. ROYMON, S/O.RAGHAVAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH (ITTANKULANGARA) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RAMDAS, S/O.KESAVAN, SALEEM SADANATHIL HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR P.O, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. MADHAVI @ MANKA, W/O.KESAVAN, MAPPILA VALIYAPARAMBIL, ACHINAKOM BHAGOM, KUDAVECHOOR PO, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 3. SIVARAJAN, S/O.KESAVAN, MANOJ BHAVAN, ACHINAKOM BHAGOM, KUDAVECHOOR P.O, VECHOOR VILLAGE. 4. PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.KESAVAN, SEEMA BHAVAN, ACHINAKOM BHAGOM, MUDAVECHOOR P.O, VAIKOM. 5. PONNAPPAN, S/O.KESAVAN, MAPPILA VALIYAPARAMBIL KUDAVECHOOR P.O, VAIKOM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22073 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.317 of 1994, on the file of Munsiff Court, Vaikom. Petitioners filed I.A.No.919 of 1995, an application to appoint a new Commissioner and Surveyor. That petition was dismissed. It was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.12465 of 2008. Under Ext.P6 judgment, this Court set aside the order dismissing the application and directed Munsiff to obtain a plan and report, in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment of the Appellate Court. Trial court was also directed to appoint the same Commissioner or any other Commissioner assisted by a surveyor to obtain a correct plan demarcating the plaint schedule property. Petitioners were permitted to file work memo. Subsequent to Ext.P6 judgment, learned Munsiff allowed I.A.No.922 of 2008 under Ext.P9 order. But learned Munsiff refused the prayer to appoint a new Commissioner and instead appointed the same Commissioner and also appointed a private surveyor. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P9 order. W.P.(C) No.22073/2008 2 2. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Munsiff should have appointed a new Commissioner, as the report submitted by the original Commissioner was set aside. Ext.P6 judgment directs trial court to appoint either the same Commissioner or another Commissioner. So long as there is no allegation of personal bias against the earlier Commissioner, there is no necessity to change the Commissioner, as canvassed by the petitioner. 3. The main argument of the learned counsel is that instead of Taluk Surveyor, a private surveyor was appointed. Ext. P7 application shows that prayer was not to appoint a Taluk surveyor. The learned counsel submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of Ext.P7 petition, it is stated that Taluk Surveyor is to be appointed. Evidently, that was not pressed, when the petition was heard by the Munsiff. Even before this Court, petitioner did not contend in the earlier writ petition that Taluk Surveyor is to be appointed. Whatever it be, if the case of the petitioners is that service of private surveyor may not serve the purpose, petitioners are at liberty to file an application before learned Munsiff to change the Surveyor to Taluk Surveyor. If such an application is filed by the petitioners, learned W.P.(C) No.22073/2008 3 Munsiff to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. Writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.