IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 442 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/03/2008 IN IA.2670/2007 IN FDIA.3650/2001 IN OS.271/1995 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS NO.2 & 3 IN I.A.2670/07 IN IA 2670/07 IN FDIA/DEFENDANTS NO.3 & 4/ ------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANOOP KUMAR, S/O.KAMALAKUMARI, AGED 38 YEARS, DRIVER, "JEEJALAYAM", THALASSERY AMSOM VADIKKAKAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST. 2. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.KAMALAKUMARI, 40 YEARS, CLEANER, "JEEJALAYAM", THALASSERY AMSOM VADIKKAKAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN I.A.2670/07 IN FDIA/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS NO.1,2, 5 TO 9. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JEEJA RATNAM, D/O.KAMALAKUMARI, RESIDING AT "ANASWARAM", MEENOTH PARAMBU, N.T.DAMODARAN ROAD, PAREEKKADAVU, DHARMADAM -670 106, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SULEKHADEVI, D/O.KAMALAKUMAR, RESIDING AT "SHYNI NIVAS" (PARAMMAL HOUSE), NEAR REST HOUSE THALASSERY AMSOM VADIKKAKAM DESOM, KANNUR DIST. 3. NISHARATNAM, W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, RESIDING AT "KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE", P.O.DHARMADAM, 670106, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SHIRLA RANI, W/O.SAJEEVAN, RESIDING AT "R.S.NIVAS", KUNDUCHIRA, P.O.PONNIAM WEST, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. CHANDRA MOHAN, S/O.PARU AMMA, TECHNICIAN RESIDING AT KURUPPAKANDY, P.O.PALAYAD, DHARMADAM VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. RAKESH BABU, S/O.PARU AMMA, MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE, RESIDING T CHERIYAPARAMBATHU HOUSE NEAR JEM PLAST, P.O.KAVUMBAGHAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. CHITHRA RAMESH, D/O.PARU AMMA, RESIDING AT PARAPPARATH HOUSE, NEAR JOLLY LIBRARY, PONNIAM SARAMBI, P.O.PONNIAM WEST, PIN-670641, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.KAMALAKUMRI, AGED 42 YEARS, DRIVER, "JEEJALAYAM", THALASSERY AMSOM VADIKKAKAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1-4,6&7 SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 TO 4,6 & 7 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1246/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.442/2008 23.7.2008 Dismissed Sd/- M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= C.R.P No. 442 of 2008 ======================= Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 O R D E R Respondents 2 to 4 in IA No.3650/2001 in O.S.271/1995 on the file of Sub Court, Thalassery are the petitioners. Respondents are the petitioners in the final decree and the other respondents in the application. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, I.A.3650/2001 was filed for passing a final decree. A Commission was appointed to divide the property. Commissioner divided the property and filed a report. Petitioners originally filed I.A.3277/2003 an application to remit the report to the Commissioner. It was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. Petitioners challenged that order before this court in C.R.P.867/2005. As per order dated 22.5.2006, this court allowed the revision in part. Petitioners were permitted to get the building valued by an expert Engineer at their expenses on condition. Petitioners complied with the condition C.R.P.No.442/2008 2 and Assistant Engineer, PWD Building Section, Thalassery was appointed expert Engineer. He submitted report valuing the building at Rs.2,04,451 instead of Rs.3,16,389.50 originally made by the Commissioner. The value of the compound walls were also assessed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner submitted the report and divided the property, in terms of the report of the Engineer. Petitioners thereafter filed I.A.2670/2007 an application to set aside the report. As per order dated 13.3.2008 it was dismissed. This revision petition is filed challenging that order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that the expert Commissioner did not properly value the building. It was pointed out that eventhough the building is more than 35 years, old as found by this court in C.R.P.No.442/2008 3 C.R.P.867/2005, Engineer did not give any depreciation and the details of the valuation was also not given. It is therefore argued that learned Sub Judge was not justified in accepting the report. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents argued that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioners and in I.A.2670/2007 valuation made by the Commissioner was not challenged on the ground that Commissioner did not deduct value of depreciation of the building. It was submitted that respondents are prepared to take the building on the valuation made by the Commissioner. 5. On hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sub Judge. If the grievance of the petitioners is only with regard to the non-deduction of the depreciation value of the building considering its age, petitioners are entitled to examine the expert engineer in the C.R.P.No.442/2008 4 final decree and if at that stage court finds that the report is to be remitted, this order will not prevent the court from remitting the report to the Commissioner. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------- ORDER MARCH,2008