IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 840 of 2011(O) AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 10319/2010 IN OS.1343/2009 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR PETITIONER ------------------------------ TIMIN TOMY,AGED 27,S/O.TOM, OLLUKKARAN HOUSE, EDAKKUNNI VILLAGE,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.BHAMA G. NAIR SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU SRI.N.M.SIYAD RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. BINOSH,AGED 40,S/O.PAUL, CHIYARATH HOUSE POOMKUNNAM VILLAGE,THRISSUR,PIN-680 002. 2. DEEPA,AGED 34,W/O.BINOSH, CHIYARATH HOUSE,POOMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR- 680 002. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 840 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the order dated 11.2.2011 in I.A.No.10319 of 2010 in O.S.No.1343 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Thrissur. The suit was filed by the respondents for fixation of boundary of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs filed an application for appointing a Commissioner. The petitioner herein, who is the first defendant in the suit, objected to the appointment of a Commissioner. He stated that he had filed O.S.No.659 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur, against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1343 of 2009 and others for cancellation of the document in their favour. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that there was a money transaction between the petitioner and one Rappai and, as security for the loan transaction, the petitioner executed a sale deed for an extent of five cents in favour of Joshi, son of the first defendant in O.S.No.659 of 2009. Joshi assigned the property to Antu and Antu in turn assigned the property to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1343 of 2009. O.P.(C) NO.840 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when O.S.No.1343 of 2009 was filed by the respondents herein, they were aware of the filing of O.S.No.659 of 2009 and they received summons in that suit. Still, when they filed O.S.No.1343 of 2009, they did not mention about the pendency of O.S.No.659 of 2009 and the status quo order passed therein. They suppressed the material facts in O.S.No.1343 of 2009. It is submitted that in view of the status quo order in O.S.No.659 of 2009, a Commissioner cannot be appointed in O.S.No.1343 of 2009. 4. The court below held that for elucidating the matters in dispute, a Commissioner should be appointed. The suit is for fixation of boundary and unless there is a Commissioner's report, the Court would not be in a position to completely and finally adjudicate upon the disputes involved in the suit. The contention put forward by the petitioner that the title of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1343 of 2009 having been disputed and challenged in O.S.No.659 of 2009, a Commissioner cannot be appointed, is unsustainable. So also, the contention that in the light of the status quo order in O.S.No.659 of O.P.(C) NO.840 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 2009, a Commissioner cannot be appointed in O.S.No.1343 of 2009, is unsustainable. The order passed by the court below is just and proper. No illegality or jurisdictional error is established. There are no grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/