IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1648 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.162/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER : ------------------- SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O. HAMEED, AGED 49 YEARS, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA), SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SULAIMAN, S/O. HAMEED, AGED 51 YEARS, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.1648 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 ORDER The petitioner filed I.A.No.955 of 2010 in O.S.No.162 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Munsiff, Thodupuzha to set aside the Commissioner's report and plan. The court below, by the order dated 10th March, 2011, dismissed the application. 2. Various grounds were raised by the petitioner to set aside the Commissioner's report. PWs 1 to 4 were examined before the court below in support of the application. Documents were also marked. The court below considered the contentions put forward by the petitioner and it was held that there is no ground for setting aside the report and plan. I do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law warranting interference. O.P.(C) No.1648 of 2011 2 3. Dismissal of the application for setting aside the Commissioner's report would not mean that the contentions put forward by the petitioner are found against, in so far as it relates to the suit as such. Any finding or observation in the order impugned is only for the purpose of considering the question whether the Commissioner's report should be set aside or not. Any finding therein would not be taken as the finding in the suit. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to admit the Original Petition on that ground. It is made clear that the findings and observations made in the order impugned would not be treated as findings which are binding on the parties for the purpose of disposal of the suit. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl