IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28219 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 4006/08 IN OS.112/1999 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PETER @ MOHAN, S/O.LATE JOHNKUTTY, KURISUNKAL HOUSE, CHERTHALA THEKKUM MURI, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE., 2. RAMEGE BASIL, S/O.JOHNKUTTY, KURISUNKAL HOUSE, CHERTHALA THEKKUM MURI CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE., BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY SRI.L.JAYAWANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NELLY VIJAYAGHOSH, CHARANGATTU HOUSE, CHERTHALA SOUTH PO. 2. VIJAYAGHOSH, S/O.KUNJUKUTTAN, CHARANGATTU HOUSE, CHERTHALA SOUTH PO. 3. BASTIN PILAI, S/O.WILSON, KAKKARIYIL HOUSE, ARTHUNKAL PO. 4. MARIYAMMA, D/O.JOHNKUTTY, KURUSINKAL HOUSE, ARTHUNKAL PO. 5. MARY MARGARETTE @ SAJIYAMMA, D/O. JOHNKUTTY, KURUSINKAL HOUSE, ARTHUNKAL PO. 6. KUTTAI @ C.C.PANKAJASKHAN, S/O.LATE CHITHAMBARAN, PARVATHY SADANAM, CHERTHALA SOUTH PO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.28219 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions inter alia to quash Ext.P6 order. ii. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction inter alia to call for the records that culminated in Ext.P6 order. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.112 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Challenge raised in the writ petition is against the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing an application moved by the WPC.28219/09 2 plaintiffs for appointing an advocate commission to conduct a local inspection and measure out the suit property with the assistance of a surveyor. The application was opposed to by the contesting defendants in the suit. The court below, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Notice was served on respondents 3 to 6. Though notice was issued to respondents 1 and 2, it has not been returned after service. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved and Ext.P6 order challenged in the writ petition, service of notice to respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the submissions made and also the materials produced in the writ petition, it is seen, previously the 2nd petitioner had moved a commission application, but, that was dismissed. Against that order, WPC.28219/09 3 2nd petitioner filed a revision before this Court, and that was found not entertainable as a challenge against the dismissal of a commission by way of revision is not provided by law. From the submissions made by the counsel, it is also seen, the present case is the leading case, which is ordered to be tried along with two other cases. All the cases are ripe for trial and they are posted in the special list for trial. The learned Munsiff, dismissing the commission application of the petitioners/plaintiffs, have expressed the view that identity of the property is not a disputed matter between the parties. It is further stated that the survey number and the boundaries of the properties mentioned in the title deeds, of which rival claims are raised by the parties are the same. The observations so made by the learned Munsiff are taken exception to by the learned counsel contending that in the connected suits the extent is different, and for a proper adjudication of the issues determination of the identity of the suit property may also arise for consideration. Whatever that be, if the petitioners/plaintiffs have any grievance over the observations made by the learned Munsiff, it is open to them WPC.28219/09 4 to bring it to the notice of the court seeking correction or review by moving an application as provided by law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented that the suit has been instituted a decade ago, and a previous commission application moved by the plaintiffs had been dismissed much earlier, I find no interference with Ext.P6 order especially in the light of the reasonings given thereunder by the learned Munsiff is permissible invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp