IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 20332 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------- OS.72/1998 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, 51 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT K T HOUSE, ELANGODE PANOOR, THALASSERY, KANNOOR DIST. KERALA. 2. SUHARA, D/O.ABDULLA HAJI, 48 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT K T HOUSE, ELANGODE PANOOR, THALASSERY. 3. HAJIRA, D/O.ABDULLA HAJI, 45 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT K T HOUSE, ELANGODE PANOOR, THALASSERY. 4. SHAHIDA, D/O.ABDULLA HAJI, 42 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT K T HOUSE, ELANGODE PANOOR, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HAREENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ EARAYINTAVIDA ANNERI KRISHNAN, S/O.KORUMBAN 73 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION PARAYINMEL HOUSE, P.O.ELANGODE, PANOOR, THALASSERY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.20332 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T In the year, 1988 original plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 who died pending suit (their legal representatives are the petitioners before me) brought a suit for recovery of possession of plaint B schedule and for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents-defendants from trespassing into plaint A schedule property. The suit was originally decreed against respondents against which they filed A.S. No.169 of 1991. Appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Matter came to this Court in S.A. No.89 of 1993 and there was a remand permitting plaintiffs to identify the suit property. Accordingly plaintiffs filed I.A. No.1346 of 2007 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a Surveyor inspected the property and submitted report and plan. Petitioners contended that the said report and plan are not sufficient to identify the suit property and filed I.A. No.1402 of 2008 to remit the said report and plan. That application was dismissed on 12.12.2008. Learned counsel states that the order was challenged and the I.A. was W.P(C) No.20332 of 2010 -: 2 :- remitted to the learned Munsiff to record evidence. Thereafter parties gave evidence, oral and documentary. At that stage petitioners filed I.A. No.599 of 2010 to set aside Exts.C5 and C6, report and plan stating that they are not helpful to identify the property. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff on 29.05.2010. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that it is virtually a case where Advocate Commissioner has decided the suit and Exts.C5 and C6 did not properly identify the suit property. It is contended that plot 'F' is stated to be around two cents but Advocate Commissioner has shown the extent of the said plot less as than a cent. It is also contended that measurement in Ext.A10 would not tally with the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. According to the learned counsel report and plan are to be remitted to the Advocate Commissioner for fresh measurement. 2. The suit is of the year 1988 and now proceedings are at the fag end, both sides having adduced evidence. I have gone through Ext.P9, order under challenge where there is reference to the objection raised by the petitioners to the report and plan. Learned Munsiff has stated that the report and plan are sufficient W.P(C) No.20332 of 2010 -: 3 :- to identify the property. It is also held that discrepancy pointed out by petitioners between the reports and plans is not of any consequence. Learned Munsiff pointed out that property has been measured and that property given to the Mosque as per Ext.A8 is shown as on the western side of the property. It is also pointed out by the learned Munsiff that non-mentioning of the Puramboke land is not fatal for the decision of the case. Thus the view taken by the learned Munsiff is that report and plan are sufficient to identify the suit property. There is no reason why this Court should interfere at this stage particularly when the suit is of the year 1988 and it is at the fag end. If at all petitioners have any grievance it is open to them to raise such grievance in the appeal if the decision in the suit went against them. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Hence without prejudice to the right of petitioners to challenge correctness of the report and plan in case the ultimate decision goes against them, this Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv