IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3150 of 2011(O) ------------------------- PETITIONERS ---------------------- 1. M/S.STAR FISH EXPORTS,PEEVEES BUILDING, COCHIN 682006,EDACOCHIN REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,GEORGE JOSEPH,S/O.LATE V.I.JOSEPH. 2. GEORGE JOSEPH,AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.I.JOSEPH,MANAGING PARTNER,M/S.STAR FISH EXPORTS,PEEVEES BUILDING,EDACOCHIN, COCHIN-682006. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL RESPONDENT: --------------------- M.V.MAHAMOOD,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.P.V.IBRAHIM,RESIDING AT C.C.37/1094-D, STERLING ESTATE,KUMARANANASAN ROAD,KALOOR.P.O, COCHIN-682017. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 3150 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS -------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.82/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT OF KOCHI. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 11.01.2006. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.P4. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA 1530/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.P5. COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO EXT.P4. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2011 IN IA NO.1530/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No. 3150 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.82 of 2011 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Kochi. That is a suit filed by the respondent for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain petitioners and third defendant from alienating the suit property, inducting third parties into possession and creating encumbrance thereon or committing waste therein. Ext.P2 is the copy of lease deed executed between petitioners and the respondent. In the course of the suit petitioners filed Ext.P4, application to depute an Advocate Commissioner to prepare an inventory regarding the machineries petitioners claimed to have purchased and installed in the suit property. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff by Ext.P6, order observing that having regard to the scope of the suit and the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent such an inventory is not required. That order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel submits that apprehension of petitioners is that in respect of the machineries that they have purchased as referred to in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in O.P(C).No.3150 of 2011 -: 2 :- support of Ext.P2, application respondent might in future make a claim. But, it is not necessary for this Court to anticipate such a claim in future and pass orders now. Learned Munsiff has observed in Ext.P6, order that the suit is for recovery of possession of the building (that is evidently a mistake, as the suit is for injunction as above referred) and the counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that respondent has no claim over the machineries in the plaint schedule building. Learned Munsiff was of the view that there was no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. 3. The question whether in the course of the suit respondent might make any claim over the machineries which petitioners claim to have purchased and installed at their expense, is a matter which is not required to be considered at this stage. If such an eventuality arises in future, petitioners can seek appropriate relief from the learned Munsiff then as provided under the law. As things stands now, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This original petition is dismissed with the above observation. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-