IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 3187 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1780/07 IN OS.162/2003 of M.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- GEEMON, S/O.KONNIKKARA PAUL KUMARANELLOOR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- T.P.PRABHAKARA MENON S/O. MELEMBATTU GOVINDAN NAIR OTTUPARA DESOM, KUMARANELLOOR, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO.3187/2008/D APPENDIX PETITONER'S EXTS: EXT - P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE O.S. 162/03 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKKANCHERRY. EXT - P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT - P2(A) : COPY OF THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT - P3 : COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT. EXT - P3(A) : COPY OF THE SKETCH PLAN. EXT - P4 : COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND PLAN EXT - P5 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P4 COMMISSION REPORT. EXT - P6 : COPY OF THE PETITION (I.A.) NO. 1780/07) FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT - P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1780/07 IN O.S. NO. 162/03 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, VADAKKANCHERRY. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE RHS M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3187 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.162/2003. Respondent is the defendant. The suit was one for injunction. Respondent, as a counter claim, sought a decree for fixation of the boundary. A commission was taken by respondent. Commissioner submitted Ext.P4 report along with a plan. Thereafter, petitioner filed I.A.No.1780/07, an application to remit the report. Respondent filed an objection. The Munsiff dismissed the petition under Ext.P7 order. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Commissioner has not identified property of the plaintiff, in accordance with document No.1153/95. Munsiff found that there is no necessity to remit the report, as the property was W.P.(C) No.3187/2008 2 identified. Ext.P4 report shows that the Commissioner has identified the property with reference to Document No.1153/95. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P7 order. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to let in evidence in support of the objections raised and also to cross examine the Commissioner, if necessary. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.