IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8053 of 2010(O) ------------------------- (OS.NO.314/2007 OF PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD) .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. KARTHIKEYAN ,S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, UDAYANIVAS, NEAR U.P.SCHOOL,PUDUSSERY,PALAKKAD. 2. JAGADEESHAN ,S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN, UDAYANIVAS, NEAR U.P.SCHOOL,PUDUSSERY,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.A.R.GANGADAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KANNANKUTTY,S/O.CHENTI KARUNGATTIL HOUSE, NEAR U.P.SCHOOL, PUDUSSERY WEST VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 2. JAYAPALAN, S/O.CHENTI, KURUNGATTIL, MARUTHARODE, PALAKKAD. 3. BAHULEYAN, S/O.CHENTI KURUNGATTIL, MARUTHARODE, PALAKKAD. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.8053 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 11th March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges Ext.P13 order, by which the Court below remitted the report and plan of the Commissioner and called for a fresh report and plan. 2. The petitioners instituted a suit as OS No.337/06 before the District Court, Palakkad (functioning as Vacation Court in lieu of Munsiff's Court, Palakkad), seeking a decree for perpetual injunction and other ancillary reliefs. A copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. The defendants entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 written statement. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and a Commission report was filed along with a plan. It is stated that subsequently, the respondents herein instituted a suit as OS No.314/07 before the Munsiff's WPC 8053/10 2 Court, Palakkad for declaration of title of 1.25 cents of property. Copy of the plaint in the said suit is produced as Ext.P4. The petitioners herein filed Ext.P5 written statement. The petitioners have stated several other facts regarding the suit, which are quite unnecessary for the disposal of the present Petition. Suffice to say that an IA was filed by the first respondent stating that the Commissioner's report was not helpful in determining the issues involved in the suit and a more detailed report was necessary. The petitioners herein filed objections to the said Petition. But, the Court below found that the Commissioner has not properly identified the property and therefore, a fresh report and plan will be necessary. Accordingly, the report and plan were remitted by the Court below. 3. This Court fails to see any infirmity, either factual or legal, in the order passed by the Court below. On going through the order, it can be seen that after application of mind, the Court below has made the WPC 8053/10 3 observation that the Commissioner's report and plan presently available, are not helpful for the proper adjudication of the issues involved in the case and for that reason, the report was remitted. The Court below has also directed the Commissioner to file the report within a time frame. This shows that the Court below is cautious about its duties. There is no reason to interfere with the said order. There is no merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the Court below shall dispose of the suit pending before it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 8053/10 4 WPC 8053/10 5