IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30145 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.34/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SASIKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.APAYIL GOPALAN, RESIDING AT PALAPPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------- SANKARANKUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.APAYIL DECEASED CHOZHI @ KUTTAN, PALAPPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT SRI.S.SREEDEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 30145/09) PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.34/06 DT. 25.1.06 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 8.2.2006 IN O.S.NO.34/06 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REMITTING THE REPORT AND SKETCH TO THE VERY SAME COMMISSIONER DATED 13.11.2007 IN I.A.NO.2674/06 IN O.S.NO.34/06 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN DATED 31.12.2007 IN O.S.NO.34/06 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.10.09 IN I.A.NO.1461/09 ALONG WITH PHOTOCOPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS IN O.S.NO.34/06 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19.10.2009. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2009 IN I.A.NO.1461/09 IN I.A.NO.2674/06 IN O.S.NO.34/06 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.30145 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 26th November, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: 1. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P7 and set aside Exhibit P7 by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. 2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Munsiff Court, Ottapalam, to remit the Commissioner's report and plan marked as Ext.P4. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for injunction, and the respondent is the defendant. The dispute involved in the suit related to the claim of the plaintiff over a pathway described as B schedule, the existence of which is disputed by the defendant. At the instance of the plaintiff, an advocate commissioner deputed by the court, after local inspection, filed P2 report with a rough sketch. Respondent/defendant raised objections to that report and sought for its remission and setting aside. The learned Munsiff passed P3 order remanding the report to the commissioner directing him to conduct a local inspection again and file a detailed report. Pursuant to P3 order, W.P.C.No.30145/09 - 2 - after second local inspection, the advocate commissioner filed P4 report with rough sketch as well. Petitioner/plaintiff filed objections to that report, seeking for its remission and collection of a fresh report and plan. P5 is the copy of that application, to which the respondent filed P6 objections. The learned Munsiff dismissed P5 application vide P7 order. Propriety and correctness of P7 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. From the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, it is noticed that the challenge against the report and plan of the advocate commissioner was raised by the petitioner nearly one year after the filing of that report and hardly three days before the listed day for trial of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that in the earlier report the commissioner had located B schedule pathway, but, after its remission on the objections of the respondent/defendant, he had filed a report as if the B schedule pathway was not in existence at any point of time. Whatever be the merit of the objection canvassed against the report and plan, the request made by the plaintiff for remission of the report long after W.P.C.No.30145/09 - 3 - the filing of such report when the case was included in the list for trial was rightly and correctly turned down by the learned Munsiff. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in P7 order passed by the learned Munsiff. Writ Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE