IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 1196 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.163/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------ KAITHAKKAL JOSE S/O.CHANDI, 56 YEARS AGRICULTURE, VAYALAYI PULINGOME VILLAGE TALIPPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.M.M.ANTO RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. JOHN NEDUMPALLIL S/O.SEBASTIAN, 66 YEARS AGRICULTURE, VAYALAI PULINGOME VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK PO.CHUNDA 670141. 2. NEDUMPALLIL VALSAMMA W/O.JOHN, AGED 60 YEARS NO EMPLOYMENT, VAYALAI PULINGOME VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK P.O.CHUNDA 670 141. 3. CHERUPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY CHERUPUZHA 670 511. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.(C).No.1196 of 2010 O ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.163 of 2008, on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Payyannur, filed I.A.No.812 of 2010 to remit the Commissioner's report and plan. The application was seriously opposed by the respondents. 2. The suit was filed for declaration of title. The objection raised by the petitioner to the Commissioner's report was that the property of the defendants was not measured and located by the Commissioner. The defendants had objected to do so on the ground that there were previous litigations between the parties and the property of the defendants was located by the Commissioner in those earlier suits. Inspection by the Commissioner was made with the assistance of the Superintendent of Surveys. O.P.(C) No.1196 of 2010 2 3. The court below held that it is not necessary to remit the Commissioner's report and plan. The court below also held that it is not necessary to measure the property of the defendants for the purpose of disposal of the suit. 4. The court below considered the facts of the case in detail and held that it is not necessary to remit the Commissioner's report and plan as no purpose would be served by directing further investigation. It was also held such a course would result in protracting the proceedings. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner would be entitled to put forward all his objections to the report at the time of trial of the suit. For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl