IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 482 of 2011(O) ------------------------------- (ORDER IN I.A. 2921/2010 AND IN O.S. 1763/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA) .... PETITIONER -------------- MANJUSHA, W/O.PALAPARAMBIL VELAYUDHAN, ASTAMICHIRA DESOM, VADAKKUMBAGAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- JOY, S/O.ILANJIKKAL DOMINI, VENNUR DESOM, ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK – 686 303. ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.482 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 21 st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1763 of 2007 on the file of the court of the Principal Munsiff of Irinjalakkuda. The suit is for injunction. The defendant filed a counter claim seeking recovery of possession of the property scheduled therein. 2. As per the order in I.A.No.1705 of 2009 filed by the defendant, a Commissioner was appointed. On 14.12.2009, the court below passed an order stating that the Commissioner need report only on the matters mentioned in the Commission application and that the matters mentioned in the work memo filed by the plaintiff need not be looked into by the Commissioner. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.2921 of 2010 to review the order dated 14.12.2009. The court below dismissed that O.P(C).No.482 OF 2011 2 application by the order dated 17 th January, 2011 (Ext.P8). The petitioner has challenged in this Original Petition, the order dated 14.12.2009 (a copy of which is not produced but the order is extracted in the Original Petition) and order dated 17.1.2011 in I.A.No.2921 of 2010. 3. The court below found in the order dated 17.1.2011 that the petition for review was filed only on 18.8.2010 to review the order dated 14.12.2009. No reasons were stated for the inordinate delay. The Commissioner has already filed the report. 4. It would appear that there is a dispute between the parties as to how the counter claim property should be measured, whether with reference to document No.3357 of 2007 or with reference to the earlier title deed of the year 1969. It is not necessary to resolve that controversy in this Original Petition. O.P(C).No.482 OF 2011 3 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed I.A.No.3696 of 2010 to set aside the Commissioner's report and I.A.No.1922 of 2010 to appoint another Advocate Commissioner. These applications are pending. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the order dated 14.12.2009 and the order dated 17.1.2011 in I.A.No.2921 of 2010 may stand in the way of appropriate contentions being taken in the application to set aside the Commissioner's report and in the application for appointing another Commissioner. It is made clear that notwithstanding the orders dated 14.12.2009 and 17.1.2011, the petitioner would be entitled to put forward all relevant contentions in I.A.Nos.3696 of 2010 and 1922 of 2010. No further directions are required in the matter. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms