IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24426 of 2009(O) ---------------------------------------- OS.234/1995 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KUNJITHAMI, THARAYIL HOUSE, KOOLIMUTTAM VILLAGE AND DESAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.K.S.RAJESH MR.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SUBHADRA, D/O.THARAYIL RAMAN, ERUMATHURUTHY HOUSE, KOOLIMUTTAM VILLAGE AND DESAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24426 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Pass an order setting aside the order dated 23/07/2009 passed by the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur in I.A No.2191/2008 in O.S 234/2005 in the interest of justice. ii) Any other orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S No. 234 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur. The above suit is one for W.P.(C).No.24426 OF 2009 Page numbers partition in which a preliminary decree has already been passed. In the final decree proceedings, a commission was appointed to measure out the properties to effect division of the shares in tune with the preliminary decree. The commissioner after executing the work, filed a report and plan to which petitioner, the first defendant raised objections. The learned Munsiff finding no merit in the objections raised negatived them by Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. A commission report, though has much relevance in a final decree proceedings, after all is only a piece of evidence. W.P.(C).No.24426 OF 2009 Page numbers This court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be expected nor is it proper or appropriate to examine the correctness of a commission report on its merits which is yet to be considered by the court below. Further more, in a final decree proceeding acceptance of the commission report will lead to the passing of the final decree. Of course the court can vary or modify the report and pass a decree as found proper and correct. After all the defendants in the suit will get an opportunity to challenge the correctness of the commission report in case any adverse decision is made against them and an appeal has to be preferred against the final decree passed by the court. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv