IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22186 of 2008(N) -------------------------- OS.205/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.8 --------------- C.K.PUSHPAVALLI,D/O.KRISHNAN, KOTTAMPADIKKAT HOUSE, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM, VATTOLI DESOM, P.O.VATTLI, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SRI.SRINATH GIRISH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. C.K.KOUSALYA, D/O.KRISHNAN, PALATHANTAVIDA HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. VADAKARA P.O. 2. C.K.RAGHAVAN, PARAMBATH HOUSE, VADAKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DIST. VADAKARA P.O. 3. C.K.RAMACHANDRAN, KRISHNA DEEPTHI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. VADAKARA P.O. 4. SAROJINI, HILTON HOUSE, KADALUNDI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. KADALUNDI P.O. 5. SARASWATHI, AMMINI HOUSE, KOZHIKODE. VADAKARA P.O. 6. DEVADASI, LAKSHMI NIVAS, VETTOOR AMSOM, KARANGOTH DESOM, PAYYANNUR. VELLOOR P.O. 7. DEVADASAN, MURIYAMBATH HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DIST. VADAKARA P.O. W.P.(C) No.22186 of 2008 : 2 : 8. C.K.DHARM,ADASAN, CHERUVALATH HOUSE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. VADAKARA P.O. 9. C.K.RAJAGOPALAN, CHERUVALATH HOUSE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DIST. VADAKARA P.O. 10. C.K.JAYANTHI JAYAKRISHNAN, SARAS VEEDU, KANNUR. KODIYERI P.O 11. N.ABDUL KADAR, KODIYERI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DIST. KODIYERI P.O 12. KUNNUMPRATH UMMER, KODIYERI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DIST, KODIYERI P.O. 13. VALIYAPARAMBATH SAJEESH,S/O.BALAN, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DIST. VADAKARA P.O. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22186 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the seventh final decree petitioner in I.A.No.1882 of 2004 in O.S.No.205 of 1996, on the file of Munsiff Court, Vadakara. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order, whereunder learned Munsiff remitted the report to the Commissioner to file a revised report. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except the eighth defendant, all other respondents filed objections to the report and sought to set aside the report and the learned Munsiff was not justified in remitting the report under Ext.P6 order, without considering the objections. It was also argued that Ext.P6 is not a speaking order, and in such circumstances, Ext.P6 order is to be quashed. W.P.(C) No.22186/2008 2 On hearing the learned counsel and on going through Ext.P6 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in Ext.P6 order. Under Ext.P6 order, learned Munsiff directed the Commissioner to verify the measurements and fix the properties accurately and divide the properties in such a way that owelty amount payable is reduced. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order. Petitioner is at liberty to file an objection to the report filed by the Commissioner. Writ petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.