IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19358 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.NO.106/2008 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- LAKSHMI DEVI, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT MANIYANCODE HOUSE, MANNUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR.T.C.SURESH MENON, MR.JIBU P THOMAS, MR.P.S.APPU, MR.A.R.NIMOD, MR.C.A.ANOOP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN. 2. KUNJAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT POOTHANCODE, MUCHEERI, KONGAD AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.SAJAN VARGHEESE. K, MR.LIJU. M.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19358/2009-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.24836/2006 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD. 31/07/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DTD. 04/02/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 17/02/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DTD. 27/03/2009. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 790/2009 IN O.S. NO. 106/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF (PRINCIPAL) OF PALAKKAD DTD. 06/06/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19358 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Writ petition has been filed by the defendant in O.S No. 106 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Palakkad. The above suit is one for injunction, and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The defendant had moved an application for appointment of a commission and pursuant thereto an advocate commissioner appointed by the court measured out the property with the assistance of a surveyor and filed a report and plan. Petitioner filed objections seeking remission of the report. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a counter to the application moved by the petitioner/defendant. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides passed Ext.P5 order declining the request for remission taking a view that the W.P.(C).No.19358 OF 2009 Page numbers suit being one for injunction the question involved was only possession and that alone. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 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 counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed another suit as O.S No.412/2009 before the Sub Court, Palakkad for fixation of boundary in respect of his property over which the commissioner had filed the report and plan in the present case. In the subsequent suit a commissioner had already conducted local inspection and determined the points sought for. In view of the subsequent developments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner W.P.(C).No.19358 OF 2009 Page numbers propose to move an application before the District Court for transfer of the present suit also to the Sub Court to have a joint trial of both suits. So much so, without prejudice to his right to claim appropriate reliefs in the latter suit for a reexamination of the commission report filed in the present suit, it is requested by the counsel that the writ petition be disposed. The learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in the disposal of the writ petition as indicated above. In the circumstances reserving the right of the petitioner to canvass his objections over the commission report filed in the suit, as provided by law, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv