IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 4954 of 2007(M) ------------------------- OS.146/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- DIVAKARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, LEKSHMIBHAVAN, NEDUTHERI, PATTAZHY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- T.K.RAGHAVAN, AGED 65 YEARS, ANIL BHAVAN, KANNIMELTHERI, PATTAZHY VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.C.V.VASUDEVAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent absent. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for default. 1-10-2009. Sd/-P.Q.Barkath Ali, Judge. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- W. P. C. No.4954 of 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT In this Writ Petition under Article 227, under challenge is Ext.P3 order of the learned Munsiff dismissing the application to set aside Ext.P2 Commissioner's Report. The grounds raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P1 Commission Report is the correct Commission Report and that without setting aside that report the learned Munsiff should not have issued a fresh commission and should not have relied on Ext.P2 report submitted by the Commissioner. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.P.Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.Haridas would submit that the impugned order is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. According W. P. C. No.4954 of 2007 -2- to him, the learned Munsiff passed the impugned order as if Ext.P1 is already set aside. Ext.P1 had not been set aside earlier. It is by Ext.P3 that the learned Munsiff states that Ext.P1 first Commissioner's Report is set aside. The observations in the impugned order that the first Commissioner's Report is set aside is patently erroneous, submits Sri.Haridas. 3. I am of the view that if the impugned order is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record, it is open to the petitioner to move the learned Munsiff himself by proper application for review. But I do not find any warrant for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 for correcting the impugned order. After all, Ext.P3 is going to be only one of the items of evidence on the basis of which the suit is going to be decided. It is open to the W. P. C. No.4954 of 2007 -3- plaintiff/petitioner to rely on other items of evidence and substantiate the cause of action that he has alleged in the suit. If for any reason the suit after trial is decided against the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to raise the grounds which he has raised in the present Writ Petition in the prospective appeal which the petitioner may have to be institute against that judgment and decree. 4. The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE kns/-