IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 16540 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 630 /2010 IN OS.76/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- CHANDY ZACHARIAS, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.CHANDY RESIDING AT PARAMPETTA, PATTASSERIL, MARIDOM KARA, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. ASOKAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT ELANJIKUNNEL, MARIDOM KARA, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA, KOTTAYAM. 2. JALAJA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O.ASOKAN, RESIDING AT ELANJIKUNNEL, MARIDOM KARA, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA, KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.16540 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayer in this Writ Petition is to set aside report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Petitioner is defendant in O.S. No.76 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Pala originally instituted as a suit for prohibitory injunction and later amended as one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit before amendment and thereafter was vehemently resisted by the petitioner on various grounds. He also made a counter claim seeking right over the disputed property. On the application of respondents/plaintiffs a Commissioner was deputed to inspect the property. Commissioner has with the assistance of Surveyor measured the property and submitted report and plan which are sought to be set aside by the petitioner vide I.A. No.630 of 2010. Learned Munsiff observed that since there is direction by this Court for time bound disposal of the case, that has to be complied with, issue regarding setting aside of report and plan involves evidence and that it is appropriate that in the course of trial if it is shown that report and plan are not acceptable petitioner could seek W.P(C) No.16540 of 2010 -: 2 :- appropriate reliefs then. Petitioner is aggrieved by that order and has come up with this Writ Petition. Learned counsel contends that report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner are of no use and they are liable to be set aside. It is also request of learned counsel that time limit fixed by this Court may be extended so that if report and plan are set aside a fresh report and plan could be obtained. 2. It is not as if trial court declined prayer of petitioner to set aside the report and plan nor do I think that trial court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or refused to exercise the jurisdiction it has. This is a case where time limit was fixed by this Court for disposal of the case, that had to be extended and now the outer time limit is 18.06.2010. It is while so that petitioner filed application for setting aside the report and plan. Learned Munsiff observed that evidence has to be recorded on that application and the question of setting aside the report and plan can be considered in the course of trial and if on evidence if it is found that report and plan are to be set aside the same can be done at that point of time. Application filed by the petitioner was not dismissed or otherwise disposed of but posted along with W.P(C) No.16540 of 2010 -: 3 :- the suit. In other words prayer of the petitioner to set aside the report and plan is not foreclosed by the order challenge. There is no reason to interfere. The Writ Petition fails, it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv