IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25412 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2009 IN IA. 1265/2008 IN OS.438/1998 of PRL .MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 6: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. UBAID, S/O.T.K. MOIDEENKUNHI, AGED 42 YEARS, SAMEER MANZIL, NEAR UDAYAMANGALAM, UDMA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. PARVATHI MOHANAN, W/O.MOHANAN, AGED 45 YEARS, VALIYA VALAPPU HOUSE, CHERIPADY KAVU, UDAYAMANGALAM, UDMA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI MR.V.A.SATHEESH MR.J.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 4 & 5: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.M. ABIDA, D/O.T.K. MOIDEENKUNHI, AGED 40 YEARS, KUNDOLAPARA, UDMA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. ISMAIL, S/O.T.K. MOIDEENKUNHI, AGED 49 YEARS, VALIYA VALAPPU HOUSE, CHERIPADY KAVU, UDAYAMANGALAM, UDMA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. HANEEFA, S/O.T.K. MOIDEENKUNHI, AGED 35 YEARS, VALIYA VALAPPU HOUSE, CHERIPADY KAVU, UDAYAMANGALAM, UDMA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SIDDIQUE, S/O.T.K. MOIDEENKUNHI, AGED 33 YEARS, VALIYA VALAPPU HOUSE, CHERIPADY KAVU, UDAYAMANGALAM, UDMA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25412 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are the defendants in O.S No.438 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kasaragod. The above suit is one for partition in which a preliminary decree had already been passed. In the final decree proceedings, an advocate commissioner deputed by the court measured out the suit property with the assistance of a surveyor and filed a report and plan specifying the allotment to be made to the respective sharers in accordance with the preliminary decree. The defendants raised objections to the commission report and plan. Some other parties involved in the suit also filed objections to the report. The learned Munsiff after considering the objections to the report and plan W.P.(C).No.25412 OF 2009 Page numbers negatived them by order dated 31/07/2009. Ext.P3 is the copy of that order. 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 petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P3 order, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. Various objections raised to the commission report by the petitioners have not been properly appreciated and even the allotments of plots made by the advocate commissioner are patentally erroneous, and so much so, the report and plan are liable to be set aside, is the submission of the learned counsel. I am not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel. This court in exercise of its visitorial W.P.(C).No.25412 OF 2009 Page numbers jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the merit of a commission report and enter findings thereof. In a final decree proceeding for partition needless to point out the acceptance of the commission report will lead to passing of the final decree in the suit. Of course the court can pass a final decree subject to modifications as found necessary to the report and plan. A right of appeal is provided against the final decree to the parties involved in the final decree proceedings. When that be so, whatever be the challenge to the commission report and plan, any party aggrieved can raise such challenges preferring an appeal, if so found necessary, against the final decree to be passed by the court. Writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv