IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3298 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- I.A. NO.2742/2008 IN F.D. I.A. NO.1032/2007 IN OS.347/2002 OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ S. JANARDHANAN, S/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN, CHALADIKKALAM HOUSE, KANIENKOODE POST, KOTTAYI, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- S. KALADARAN, S/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN, RESIDING AT PETTAKKADU HOUSE, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN-678 101. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 3298 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT STATEMENT FILED IN O.S. NO.347/2002 DT.28-11-2006 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND PLANS FILED IN I.A.NO.1082/2007 IN O.S.NO.347/2002 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS TO EXT.P-2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD DT.28-8-2008. EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION AS I.A.NO.2742/2008 IN O.S.NO.347/2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.217/2009 IN O.S.NO.347/2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.25-3-2011 IN I.A.NO.2742/2008 IN F.D.I.A.NO.1032/2007 IN O.S.NO.347/2002 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3298 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Respondent is served but there is no response. 2. The challenge in this proceeding is to Ext.P6, order dated 25.03.2011 dismissing Ext.P5, application filed by petitioner seeking permission to examine the Advocate Commissioner who submitted Ext.P2, report and plan. 3. That report and plan were submitted in the application for passing a final decree in a suit for partition – O.S.No.347 of 2002 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Palakkad. Petitioner preferred Ext.P3, objection to the report and plan and Ext.P4, application to set aside the same. In support of that application petitioner wanted to examine the Advocate Commissioner and filed Ext.P5, application which was dismissed in the absence of petitioner. Learned Sub Judge in Ext.P6, order observed that petitioner is not interested in prosecuting Ext.P5, application and that is why he remained absent. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel that it was by an inadvertent mistake that there happened to be no representation consequent to which Ext.P5, application was dismissed. OP(C)No.3298/2011 2 5. Having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute Ext.P5, application. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P6, order is set aside and Ext.P5, application is remitted to the learned Principal Sub Judge, Palakkad for decision as provided under law. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks