IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8735 of 2008(M) ------------------------- I.A.No.858/08 IN OS.56/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------- M.PADMAVATHY ,S/O. M.V.JANAKI ORIE, PADNA VILALGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------- 1. V.KUNHAMBADY,S/O.APPU ORIE, PADNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. K.P.RAVEENDRAN,S/O. KUNHAMBADY ORIE, PADNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. K.P. PRAKASHAN,S/O. KUNHAMBADY ORIE, PADNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. K.P.SHYAMALA,D/O.KUNHAMBADY ORIE, PADNA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 8735 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Hosdurg, in IA 858/08 in OS 56/04. It is an application filed by the petitioner before the court requesting the court to give a preliminary finding on the admissibility of the commissioner’s report and plan dated 14.11.07. 2. This matter came up before this court on an earlier occasion in WP(C) No.3788/08. I disposed of the matter with an observation that at the stage of evidence the writ petitioner may be permitted to adduce evidence including the examination of the commissioner and if the report is found to be defective, court can interfere with it by permitting to get further details or on suitable cause set aside the same and issue a fresh commission. So what this court has held in that decision is to proceed with the trial of the matter by permitting the parties to adduce evidence against the commissioner’s report as well and if it feels necessary then to pass orders on that. When the application was dismissed with such an observation, in order to WPC NO 8735/08 2 circumvent the same another interim application is filed with a request to the court to pass orders regarding the admissibility of the commissioner’s report and plan. It is nothing but an abuse of the process of court, which has to be thrown out at the threshold level itself. I refrain from ordering cost but I dismiss the writ petition. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 8735/08 3 WPC NO 8735/08 4