IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22232 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.515/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SUHARA,AGED 55,D/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, VENMANADU DESOM,POST VENMANADU,PAVARATTI VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT: --------------- NABEESAKUTTY,D/O.N.P.MUHAMMED HAJI, W/O.M.C.HAKKIM,MUSLIMVEETTIL CHANDANAPARAMBIL, PAVARATTY VILLAGE DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.22232 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 16th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by defendant No.7 in O.S.No.515 of 2000 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur. That is a suit for partition. Petitioner contended that she is in possession of item Nos.3 and 4 as per settlement deed No.1340 of 1971 and assignment deed No.747 of 1975. At the time of argument it was contended that properties are lying contiguous without any demarcation or boundary. To disprove that, petitioner wanted an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed and filed Ext.P3, application for the purpose. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is seen that in the plaint itself, respondent/plaintiffs have a contention that she along with other co-owners including petitioner is in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. No application for commission was taken at that time to show that there is no such joint possession of the entire suit property. It is at the fag end that applications for commission and to reopen the case for evidence is filed. Learned Sub Judge was not inclined to accept those applications. I do not find reasons to interfere. If any argument is advanced by the respondent or other contestants as to validity of the documents relied on by petitioner, it is open to the W.P.C.No.22232 of 2010 : 2 : petitioner to raise appropriate arguments based on burden of proof in that regard. Even if it is assumed that the case is decided against petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to challenge correctness of the dismissal of Ext.P3, application in the appeal that may be preferred. In the circumstance, I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-