IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35228 of 2008(R) --------------------------------------- OS.294/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MOHANDAS, AGED 61,S/O.NEENDER THEKEKALATHIL MADHAVAN, THALASSERY VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. VASU, S/O.AROOTTAYIL AYYAPPAN, ANCHERY DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THANKAMMA, W/O.VASU, ANCHERY DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 35228/2008-R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.294/2001 DATED 14/06/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH COUNTER CLAIM IN O.S.294/2001 DATED 12/09/2001. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMISSIONERS REPORT AND PLAN IN EXT.P1 SUIT DATED 03/12/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DATED 29/10/2004 IN EXT.P1 SUIT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS I.A.146/2006 IN O.S.294/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO EXT.P5 APPLICATION DATED 10/02/2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.146/2006 IN O.S.284/2001 DATED 11/08/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE SKETCH PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35228 of 2008 - R --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the records leading to Ext.p7 and may be pleased to quash the same.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.294 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery. Suit is one for fixation of boundary and injunction. Respondents are the defendants in the suit. Resisting the suit claim in the written statement, respondents have also raised a counter claim for fixation of boundaries of their property. An advocate commissioner was appointed by the court to measure out the properties with the assistance of a taluk surveyor for identification of the properties and fixation of the boundaries. The advocate commissioner after conducting inspection prepared and filed a report and plan. Petitioner challenging the merit of that report and plan filed objections seeking setting aside of that report and remitting it for fresh consideration. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides negatived objections raised by the plaintiff, but, reserving the right to challenge the report and plan in the trial vide P7 order. Propriety and correctness of P7 order is challenged in the W.P.(C).No.35228 of 2008 - R 2 writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Taluk surveyor deputed to assist the advocate commissioner appointed, before inspection and surveying of the lands, has sought for assistance of another surveyor, and after considering that request the court below had appointed the district surveyor to assist the commissioner. By that time, the Taluk surveyor, who made the request was promoted as District Surveyor and later he prepared the report and plan and submitted them before the court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plan so prepared with the assistance of a surveyor as aforementioned does not reflect correct measurement of the property. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only assistance of another surveyor also was requested for having regard to the nature of the measurement to be carried out in the properties. Further more, whatever be the objections of by the petitioner it can be agitated in the trial of the suit, and that has been so reserved in the impugned order by the learned Munsiff. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner under the impugned order as W.P.(C).No.35228 of 2008 - R 3 his rights are protected in respect of the objections raised to the report and plan, submits the counsel for the respondent. Having regard to the submissions made and perusing P7 order, I find the challenge against that order by the petitioner must fail. While passing P7 order, learned Munsiff has reserved the right of the petitioner/plaintiff relegating his objection to report for consideration at the time of trial. No doubt, petitioner/plaintiff will get sufficient opportunity to substantiate his objections by examining the commissioner and the surveyor at the trial. When that be so, by the impugned order no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Further, the commissioner report is only a piece of evidence, and this Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot go into or examine the merit of that report. P7 order passed by the learned Munsiff in the circumstances, is only to be upheld, and I do so. The writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-