IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25731 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.1896/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KOCHUVAREED S/O.KALLIVALAPPIL OUSEPH, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE AND DESOM MUKUNDPAURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOHNY, S/O.KALLIVALAPPIL OUSEPH, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT: --------------- REENA, W/O.THULUVTH POULOSE, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 683 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.25731 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 16th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Exts.P10 and P15, orders in O.S.No.1896 of 2007 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakkuda is under challenge at the instance of defendants in the suit. Respondents filed the suit for fixation of western boundary of suit property. Petitioners filed O.S.No.979 of 2008 against respondent and others for prohibitory injunction against trespassing into their property which admittedly is situated on the west of the suit property in O.S.No.1896 of 2007. Commissioner has submitted reports in both the cases. Ext.P5 is the report in O.S.No.1896 of 2007. Petitioners filed Ext.P7, application to set aside Ext.P5, report. That application was dismissed vide Ext.P10, order. Later, respondent filed application to appoint a Survey Commissioner to identify the suit property for the purpose of fixation of boundary. The very same Commissioner who submitted Ext.P5, report was appointed. That was challenged by petitioners by filing Ext.P13, application requesting to appoint another Commissioner. That application was dismissed by Ext.P15, order. Exts.P10 and P15 orders are thus under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioners W.P.C.No.25731 of 2010 : 2 : contend that there are discrepancies between Ext.P5, report in O.S.No.1896 of 2007 and the report submitted by Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.979 of 2008. Petitioners have some grievance against Commissioner who submitted Ext.P5, report. In such a situation it was not proper that court below appointed the very same Commissioner to identify the properties. It is also contended by learned counsel that Ext.P5, report should have atleast been remitted to the Commissioner. 2. I have gone through Ext.P5, report. It was not a survey commission. Instead, what was requested was to ascertain the nature and oldness of improvements on western boundary of the suit property in O.S.No.1896 of 2007. Commissioner reported in Ext.P5 that there was no specific boundary separating suit property with property of petitioners on the further west but she noticed a few concrete posts towards north western portion of the suit property and to identify its western boundary, she tied a rope on that concrete post upto the western end of compound wall on the southern side of the suit property. Commissioner reported about certain trees on either side of the said rope. That was for the limited purpose of Ext.P5, report. I have gone through Ext.P10, order where it is stated that going through the evidence of Commissioner as CW1 there was no W.P.C.No.25731 of 2010 : 3 : reason to interfere with Ext.P5, report. There is also no reason why the Commissioner should be changed. If at all there is any inadequacy or infirmity in the report and plan (for which assistance of surveyor will be obtained) that the Commissioner may submit, it is open to the petitioners to point out such inadequacy or infirmity and seek remedial measures. This court in Sarojini Vs. Karthiyani Amma (2010(1) KLT SN 17 (C.No.19) has stated that interference with the report of Advocate Commissioner and orders passed thereon by the trial court under Article 227 of the Constitution is required only when grave injustice has been committed. I am not satisfied that any such grave injustice has been committed calling for interference by this court. But I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioners to raise their objection to the report and plan that the Advocate Commissioner may submit. I also make it clear that if the petitioners are otherwise entitled, it will be open to them to challenge correctness of Ext.P10, order in the appeal that may be preferred against the judgment and decree. With the above observations writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-