IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19107 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.4/2007 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. PATHUMMA, W/O PAREED, PALLATHUPARA HOUSE, VENGLOA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. NAVAS, S/O. OF PAREED, PALLATHUPARA HOUSE, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NISSA, D/O.PAREED, PALLATHUPARA HOUSE, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. NAZRATH, D/O. PAREED, PALLATHUPARA HOUSE, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- VEERAN, S/O.AVUKUNJU, PALLATHUPARA HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.19107 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.4/2007 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. The challenge raised in the petition is against an order passed by the court below appointing an Advocate Commissioner to identify the plaint property on the request made by the plaintiff. Suit is one for injunction. The petitioners/defendants has disputed the identity of the property. The contention raised to impeach the order of the court below is that a Commissioner had already conducted local inspection and filed a report and a second Commission cannot be ordered by the court. Ext.P3, copy of the report prepared by the Commissioner earlier appointed by the court would show that only a rough sketch was prepared. In the nature of the relief claimed in the suit especially in view of the WPC.19107/09 2 dispute canvassed by the defendants questioning the identify of the suit property to sustain the suit claim, the plaintiff has to prove its identity. The court below was fully justified in allowing his application for appointment of a Commission to measure out and identify the suit property. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009