IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 709 of 2010(O) ------------------------ IA NOS.2261/2010, 169/2006, 170/2009 AN 2260/2010 IN OS.36/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ SUDEVAN, S/O.PONNAN, RESIDING AT MADTHUNARA, VADAVANNUR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.B.SHAMEERA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SELVARAJAN, S/O.VETTRIVEL MUDALIYAR, RESIDING AT MADTHUNARA, VADAVANNUR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, VADAVANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 504. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.SELVARAJAN, RESIDING AT MADTHUNARA, VADAVANNUR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, VADAVANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 504. 3. SASIKUMAR, S/O.SELVARAJAN, RESIDING AT MADTHUNARA, VADAVANNUR AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, VADAVANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 504. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.709 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chittur is the petitioner before me seeking a direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose of Ext.P6, application to appoint another Advocate Commissioner in place of the Advocate Commissioner who has submitted Ext.P7, report. The suit was filed in the year 2006 for recovery of possession on title claimed by petitioner, and other reliefs. Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the year 2006 and he made certain visits to the property. He submitted Ext.P3(a), interim report dated 27.09.2007 and Ext.P3(b), interim report on 07.08.2007. In Ext.P3(b), interim report he stated that since the properties of parties are covered by river, Surveyor was not able to measure the property and assistance of Superintendent of Survey is required. He requested the court to issue necessary directions in the matter. While so petitioner filed Ext.P5, application to direct respondents to maintain status quo and Ext.P6, application on 04.10.2010 to appoint another Advocate Commissioner levelling certain allegations against the Advocate Commissioner pointing out that he has not taken effective steps to measure and identify the property. In answer to Ext.P6, application Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P7, report explaining what exactly happened (according to him). It is stated before me that Ext.P7 is not correct. But I am not however going into its correctness. If necessary that is a matter which the trial OP(C) No.709/2010 2 court has to decide. Learned counsel states that without disposing of Ext.P6, application learned Munsiff is proceeding to try the case in the list. If Ext.P6, application is still pending necessarily learned Munsiff has to dispose of the same. Hence it is directed that learned Munsiff shall dispose of Ext.P6, application after hearing both sides (if it is not already disposed of) before the case is taken up for trial in the list. While considering Ext.P6, application learned Munsiff may also consider whether a proper plan is required for adjudication of the dispute involved in the case notwithstanding the allegations and counter allegations in Exts.P6 and P7. Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks