IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1997 of 2008(K) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2007 IN IA.462/2006 IN OS.355/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ VARGHESE, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHACKO, KOIKKARA KANDATHIL, CHITTANADU KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB SMT.N.RENJINEE DEVI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THANKACHAN, S/O. POULOSE, UTHUPPAN HOUSE, CHITTANADU KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. AMMINI, W/O. POULOSE, UTHUPPAN HOUSE, CHITTANADU KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 3. ALICE, D/O.POULOSE, UTHUPPAN HOUSE, CHITTANADU KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 4. MARY, D/O.POULOSE, UTHUPPAN HOUSE, CHITTANADU KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 5. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOCHI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI – 31. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- WP(C) No. 1997 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed against the order of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor in I.A.462/2006 in O.S.355/03, which is an application filed by the 1st defendant for remitting the Commissioner's plan and report. A perusal of the sketch submitted by the Commissioner would show that though the parties are entitled to equal extent of 42 cents under the document, the land available for each of them is less than 42 cents. The plaint A schedule is having only an actual extent of 39.980 cents now. According to the Commissioner, the property obtained by the defendant as per document No.80/74 is only having a total extent of 39.495 cents now. The contention of the 1st defendant in the case is that the plan and report submitted by the Commissioner is incorrect and it requires remission. If there are mistakes committed, it has to be proved by evidence. Therefore, at this stage, I do not want to interfere with the decision rendered by the learned Munsiff but make it very clear that the disposal of the application will not prevent the 1st defendant from adducing evidence in support of the contention that the Commissioner's plan WP(C) No. 1997/2008 -2- and report is incorrect and if the court is convinced, at the stage of evidence or after, that the Commissioner's plan and report requires either remittance or clarification, the court is at liberty to do the same or to resolve the real controversy between the parties. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of as above. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg