IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31451 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1132/2009 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1.CICILY MATHEW, AGED 60, W/O.MATHEW, PARAPARA HOUSE, EDAPALLY P.O., THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2.A.P.PAULOSE,AGED 58, S/O.PAILY, ARACKATHAZHATHU HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 3.A.P.THOMAS,AGED 56,S/O.PAILY, ARACKATHAZHATHU HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 4.A.P.XAVIER, AGED 49, S/O.PAILY, ARACKATHAZHATHU HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 5.A.P.ANTONY,AGED 47, S/O.PAILY, ARACKATHAZHATHU HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK NOW RESIDING AT 35 PARROT ROAD NEW YORK REPRESENTED BY BROTHER AND ESTATE MANAGER A.P.XAVIER AGED 49, S/O.PAILY, ARACKATHAZHATHU HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 6.ROSELY,AGED 45, W/O.APPACHAN,VATTAYIL HOUSE, T.V.PURAM, PANCHAYATH KAVALA,VAIKOM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER AND ESTATE MANAGER, A.P.THOMAS,AGED 56, S/O.PAILY, ARACKATHAZHATHU HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1.A.P.GEORGE,AGED ABOUT 50, S/O.PAILY, ARACKATHAZHATHU HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK -682307. WPC.31451/09 2.K.C.FRANCIS,AGED ABOUT 50,S/O.(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS), KIDANGETH, UDAYAMPEROOR, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK – 682307. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31451 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1132 of 2009 on the file of the IInd Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, and the respondents are the defendants. Suit property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, and at present, the 1st defendant is making attempts to remove the household articles and also commit waste in the property, is the case of the plaintiffs. With the suit, the plaintiffs moved two applications, one for an injunction against the 1st defendant and another for appointment of a Commission to conduct a local inspection to ascertain the points sought for. The learned Munsiff ordered notice on both the applications. The writ petition has been filed challenging the propriety and also correctness of the order passed by the learned Munsiff in issuing notice on the commission application. WPC.31451/09 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. If notice is given to the defendants before the visit of the Commissioner, then the very purpose of the suit itself will be defeated, according to the counsel, as there is every chance of the defendants removing the household articles before the visit of the Commissioner. So much so, without notice, the Commissioner has to be directed to conduct the local inspection and ascertain the matters sought for in the application of the plaintiffs, is the plea canvassed by the counsel. Whatever be the merits of the case canvassed by the petitioners, I find the petitioners have to invite the attention of the court below as to the emergent need for the Commissioner to conduct local inspection without notice to the defendants. It is open to the petitioners to move an application before the learned Munsiff for reviewing the order passed earlier for issuing notice on the commission application. If any such application is filed by the petitioner as indicated above, within one week from the date of this judgment, the court below shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. WPC.31451/09 3 With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp