IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 352 of 2008(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.89/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ DR.JOY JOSEPH, S/O.A.M.JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, KALICHIYANADUKKAM, ARUKUZHI, THAYANNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- DINESH KUMAR, S/O.KANNAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, PULIKKUNNU, THALANGARE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOWRISHANKAR RAI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 352 OF 2008 IN WPC 89 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008. O R D E R This review petition is preferred to review the judgment dated 2.1.2008. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. It is true that this Court has disposed of the matter at the admission stage itself. This Court directed the Court below to remit back the Commissioner's plan and report with a direction to him to measure the property on th basis of the field measurement book and the documents of title and submit a plan. The Commissioner had mentioned earlier that the field measurement book is wrong and thereafter has prepared a plan and report and submitted the same. 2. The suit is with respect to a right of way which according to the plaintiff is covered by easement by prescription. Now it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent in the review petition, if the present Commissioner's plan and report is to be looked into the RP NO. 352 of 2008 -:2:- pathway will be outside the defendant's property which may strike at the root of the very case. In order to properly appreciate the materials and to find out where the pathway is really situated and as there is a report submitted by the Commissioner holding that the field measurement book is wrong this Court directed the Court below to remit the Commissioner's plan and report to get a plan in accordance with law with the filed measurement book as well as the documents of title. This Court had made it crystal clear that which is the correct plan and report is to be decided by the Court only after the parties adduce evidence in the matter and the parties are heard. I feel the said exercise is absolutely essential for properly evaluating and understanding and to give a decision in a case of this nature. Actually it does not travel beyond the scope of the case because it revolves round the crucial question regarding the fact in which property the pathway is situated. So I do not find any ground to review my order and therefore this R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-