IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25747 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.170/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- NARAYANAN @ NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O.MELOOT VELAYUDHAN, ATTATHRA DESOM, KOTTAPURAM VILLAGE,TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SECRETARY, ERUMAPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE PRESIDENT ERUMAPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNAN KUNJAYAPPAN CHATHANCHIRA COLONY, KODUMBU KANJIRAKKODE VILLAGE. 3. SATHYAN, S/O.KUNNATH MOKKOTHA ATTATHRA DESOM, KOTTAPURAM VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. RAMAN, S/O.KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL RAVUNNY ATTATHRA DESOM,KOTTAPURAM VILLAGE TALAPPILLY TALUK. 5. THOMAS, S/O.KUTTIKATTIL THOMUTTY ATTATHRA DESOM,KOTTAPURAM VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 25747 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 16th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P8, order refusing to remit report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor is under challenge. Petitioners filed suit (O.S.No.170 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff, Vadakkanchery) for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents from trespassing into the suit property and forcibly cutting open any new way. Respondents resisted the suit and made a counter claim stating that there is puramboke way through the middle of suit property falling in survey 1092/3 which petitioner has trespassed upon. Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of Surveyor measured the property and submitted report that there is a puramboke way through schedule property but falling in survey 1122. Petitioner filed application to remit the report and plan pointing out the above discrepancy in the survey number and stating that report does not reveal which document is relied upon by the Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor to find that there was puramboke way through middle of the property. According to the petitioner puramboke is situated on the southern side of suit property and which was not W.P.C.No.25747 of 2010 : 2 : measured. Learned Munsiff refused to remit report and plan observing that the challenge is regarding measurement of the property which required evidence and there is no apparent error or flaw in the report and plan. Learned Munsiff however reserved right of petitioner to raise all his challenges to the report and plan at the time of trial. Learned counsel contends that if prohibitory injunction is granted, petitioner will be put to trouble since report states that there was a puramboke land in the suit property belonging to the petitioner and in the circumstance it was necessary to remit the report and plan. 2. Learned Munsiff has observed that objections raised by petitioner requires evidence and that it is open to the petitioner to raise all his challenges to the report and plan at the time of trial. In other words right of petitioner is not foreclosed by the impugned order. Petitioner is given the opportunity to raise all his objections to the report and plan and show that the same cannot be accepted. In the circumstances there is no reason why this court should interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-