IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1703 of 2008(C) ------------------------- OS.105/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SANTHOSH VIJAYARAGHAVAN, KRISHNAVILASAM BUNGALOW, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VINOD VIJAYARAGHAVAN, VRINDAVAN VEEDU, THEKKEVILA, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. 2. LAILA RANI, SAI PREETHI, KADAKAMPALLI VILLAGE, KANNANMOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 1703 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Munsiff, Kayamkulam, in I.A. 1238/07 in O.S. 105/2007. It is an application filed for issuance of a Commission by the 2nd defendant, who has also filed a counter claim. A reading of the order would reveal that in the counter claim the 2nd defendant had prayed the court for fixing the boundary of the counter claim “C” schedule property. When the boundary is to be determined then naturally measurement of the property with respect to the tile of parties is a must. Therefore, issuance of a Commission is absolutely necessary for an proper disposal of the case. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the court below in appointing a Commission. At the same time, since the Commission is inspecting the property, I direct the writ petitioner herein to file a work memo also before the Commissioner, so that the points which he wants to raise in the suit also can be noted by the very same Commission. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps