IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 569 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.358/2008 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.G.ANILKUMAR, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, CHIRAKKADAVU EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PULLATIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM. 2. SOMINI GOPALAKRISHNAN, W/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PULLATIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.569 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Two suits are jointly tried by the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.358 of 2008, one among the two suits in which he has claimed relief of mandatory injunction and also rectification of a registered sale deed. The other suit O.S No.359 of 2008 has been filed by the second respondent seeking the relief of putting up of boundaries and permanent prohibitory injunction. Petitioner is the sole defendant in that suit. The court below has deputed an advocate commissioner to ascertain the matters sought for by both the parties for a proper adjudication of the issues arising in the suit. The advocate commissioner with the assistance of a surveyor measured out the property and filed a report and plan. Petitioner raised serious objections to that report and made a request for remitting the report for ascertainment of additional matters as well. The learned Munsiff declined the request vide Ext.P4 order holding that omission or defect in W.P.(C).No.569 OF 2010 Page numbers the report, if any, can be supplemented by examining the commissioner at the time of trial. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. A commission report is after all a piece of evidence and its value has to be determined with reference to other materials tendered in the case. If at all petitioner has any challenge against the report and plan, he can substantiate them by examining the commissioner and also the surveyor at trial. In case the objections are sustained by leading materials and also examining the advocate commissioner and also the surveyor, need less to point out, the court has to pass appropriate orders on the acceptability of the report and plan. Reserving the right of the petitioner to substantiate W.P.(C).No.569 OF 2010 Page numbers his objections to the report and plan, Ext.P4 order has been passed by the learned Munsiff and that being so, no interference with that order in exercise of visitorial jurisdiction of this court is called for. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv