IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27512 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA. 3986 /2008 IN OS.875/2003 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- HARIGOVINDAN, S/O. KAMALAKSHI AMMA, THARAVATHU VEETTIL PIRAYIRI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SMT.O.K.SANTHA SMT.P.L.MARY TREASA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PARVATHI DEVI, D/O. BALAKRISHNA THARAVANAR, DEVI NIVAS THARAVATHU, PIRAYIRI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. VIJAYAGOPAL THAARAVANAR, S/O. SATHYABHAMA AMMA, PIRAYIRI AAMSOM PALAKKAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.27512 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P5. ii. to allow Ext.P3 application. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.875 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad. Suit is one for injunction. At the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff, an Advocate Commissioner conducted a local inspection to identify the plaint property. Petitioner filed objections to that report and sought for its remittance and remeasurement of the property with the assistance of the private surveyor. The learned Munsiff declined that request vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the WPC.27512/09 2 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. I direct the learned Munsiff to extend an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his objections to the Commission report at the trial, by taking steps for examining the Commissioner and Village Officer. If such steps are taken and the Commissioner and Village Officer are examined, the court below shall consider whether a remission of the report and remeasurement of the property for identification is essential to advance the ends of justice, irrespective of Ext.P5 order challenged in this writ petition. Subject to the above observations, and reserving the right of the petitioner to canvass his objections to the Commission report as indicated above, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.27512/09 3