IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30347 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.400/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PARAMESHWARAN AGED 57 S/O. KANNANTHARA SANKUNNY VENNIKULANGARA DESOM, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 2. RADHA AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. PARAMESWARAN KANNANTHARA, VENNIKULANGARA DESOM, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. MR.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MADHAVI, W/O. KANNANTHARA SANKUNNY, ANJERY DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. SULOJANA AGED 59, W/O. RAJAN, ANJERY DESOM, OLLUR VILLAG, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. SARADA, AGED 55, W/O. PONATHY KOCHANDY SANKARAN, KODALY DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SATHY AGE 53 , W/O. VETTIYATTIL RAMAKRISHNAN, KODALY DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUKI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. RAJAN, AGED 64, S/O. ADIYATH AYYAPAN ANJERY DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 6. SANKARAN, AGED 66, S/O. PONATHY KOCHANDY, KODALY DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAG, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 57, S/O. VETTIYATTIL KOCHAPPU, KODALY DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30347 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue an order or direction setting aside Exhibit P6 commission report. ii) To issue an order or direction setting aside the Exhibit P8 order and allowing the Exhibit P7 petition.” 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.400 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chalakkudy. The above suit has been filed under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act for recovery of possession, and the respondents are the defendants. Writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request of the petitioners/plaintiffs to set aside and remit the commission report and plan prepared by an advocate commissioner with the assistance of a surveyor. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P8 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.30347 of 2009 - O 2 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P8 order and also other exhibits tendered in the writ petition, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and it is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a fresh commission report by measuring out the suit property with the assistance of a State surveyor is essential for a fair disposal of the suit on its merits. From the facts and circumstances presented and also the submissions made, it is seen, the commission report and plan which are sought to be set aside was the fourth commission report filed in the case. A suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act demand expeditious disposal, after summary trial. There is no appeal against the decree passed in such suit, but, only revision if the grounds thereof exist. When that be the statutory mandate, it is noticed, a suit filed under the above provision of law still remains on the file of the court even after four years with commission report collected one after the other not acted upon, and but, remitted for fresh W.P.(C).No.30347 of 2009 - O 3 report and plan. Whatever be the merit of the challenges canvassed by the petitioners/plaintiffs over the last report and plan prepared by an advocate commissioner with the assistance of a surveyor, needless to point out, they have to substantiate such objections by examining the commissioner and also the surveyor at the trial of the suit. Any enquiry on the merit of the report and plan before the commencement of the trial of the case will only prolong and protract the trial and disposal of the suit. In case the petitioner takes appropriate steps for examining the commissioner and also the surveyor to substantiate his objections to the report and plan at trial the court shall extend an opportunity to him to do so. However, I direct the court below to take note that proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is of a summary nature and has to be decided expeditiously. A suit under Section 6 of the above Act is called a summary suit inasmuch as the enquiry in the suit is confined to finding out the possession and dispossession within a period of six months from the date of institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. Object of the section is to provide special and speedy remedy for W.P.(C).No.30347 of 2009 - O 4 particular kind of grievance to restore possession of a person who had been vacated from immovable property of which he had been in possession otherwise than by process by law. Bearing the principles indicated above the court below is directed to dispose the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-