IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4060 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.386/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MANIYIL KRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAPPA, MADAI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- PRESIDENT, AKHILA BHARATHA AYYAPPA SEVA SANGAM, VENGARA BRANCH, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY K.V.AJITHKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.4060 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.386 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thaliparamba is the writ petitioner. The said suit is one for a declaration that the building constructed by defendants 1 to 3 is against the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and also for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the offending portion of the construction. The petitioner had taken out a Commission and the Commissioner had filed a report and plan which was once remitted to the Commissioner who filed revised report and plan. The petitioner again filed Ext.P3 application to remit the report and plan. As per Ext.P5 order dated 10.12.2009, the court below dismissed the application. Hence this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the report and plan of the Commissioner are demonstrably wrong and the plaintiff will not be able to substantiate his case with this report and plan. W.P.(c)No.4060 of 2010 2 3. The court below has given reasons as to why the request in Ext.P3 application cannot be granted. However, if during the trial of the case the petitioner summons the Commissioner and is able to demonstrate that the revised report and plan submitted by the Commissioner are erroneous, it is made clear that Ext.P5 order will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking a remission of the report and plan to the same Commissioner or seeking the appointment of a fresh Commission or the court also suo motu doing that. Clarifying this position this writ petition is disposed of. Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj