IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24757 of 2010(O) -------------------------- IA NO.34/2010 IN OS.389/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJU PAULOSE, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI PAULOSE, MAKKAPPATHALIL HOUSE, MUNDATHANAM P.O., KANGAZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ESO, KUTTISSERIL HOUSE, MUNDATHANAM, KANGAZHA, CHANGANASSERY. 2. CHANDRAN JOHN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, MUNDATHANAM, KANGAZHA, CHANGANASSERY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24757 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.389 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Changanacherry. That is a suit for injunction concerning a pathway filed by the petitioner. It would appear that on the request of either side successive reports were obtained through different Advocate Commissioners concerning the disputed pathway and it would also appear that parties were filing work memos before the Advocate Commissioners or the court for ascertaining additional matters than what is stated in the respective commission applications. Last turn was of the respondent/defendants. They made an application for issue of a Commissioner and that application was allowed. They filed I.A.No.34 of 2010 to appoint Advocate R. Krishna Prabhan who on their earlier application had inspected the properties and submitted report. Learned Munsiff observed that no objection is filed and application is allowed. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel contended that it was not justifiable for the learned Munsiff to appoint successive Commissioners without setting aside the earlier reports and that there is possibility of divergent reports being submitted by the Advocate Commissioner newly appointed. At any rate it was necessary on the facts and circumstances of the case to appoint Shri K. Pradeep as Commissioner who, as per order on I.A.No.2162 of 2009 (filed by petitioner) inspected property and submitted report. WP(C) No.24757/2010 2 2. Now as it stands two Commissioners (M/s. K. Pradeep and R. Krishna Prabhan) have inspected the properties and submitted reports. Respondents wanted Advocate R. Krishna Prabhan to be appointed as Commissioner to inspect the property which is permitted by the learned Munsiff. Question whether subsequent reports obtained by the learned Munsiff could be accepted and admitted in evidence is not required to be gone into in this proceeding and that is a matter which learned Munsiff has to decide at the appropriate stage if such an issue arose for a decision and based on the factual situation in the case. One of the two Advocate Commissioners is now entrusted with the duty to inspect property and submit report. That is a discretionary power exercised by the learned Munsiff. I do not find reason to interfere with that discretion. It is open to the petitioner to file his objection if any to report submitted by Advocate R. Krishna Prabhan. Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks