IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7876 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------- OS.274/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- KAKKANAN THAMBAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, RESIDING AT VISHNUMANGALAM, PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, POST IRIYA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. GEETHA SUBRAHMANIAN, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.V.K. SUBRAMANYA IYYER, RESIDING AT VIZHNUMANGALAM, PULLUR VILLAGR, POST HARIPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. P. KUMARAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KAMMARAN NAIR, KRISHNA KRIPA, VISHNUMANGALAM, P.O. HARIPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7876 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The first defendant in O.S.No.274 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 order dated 17th November 2008 by which the court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as I.A.No.3196 of 2008 to remit Commissioner’s report and plan. The court below considered the application along with I.A.No.3195 of 2008 filed by the second defendant for the same purpose. Both the applications were dismissed by the court below. The court below held that the Commissioner has done the work properly and fixed the identity of the property with reference to the survey measurements and title deeds. The Commissioner was assisted in the work by the Taluk Surveyor. The court below noticed that the objections raised against the Commissioner’s report and plan are objections of the type which are usually being made when the report goes against a particular party. The court below after considering all the objections in WPC No.7876/2009 2 detail held that there is no necessity to remit the Commissioner’s report. I do not think that there is any ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order passed by the court below. Dismissal of the application for remitting the Commissioner’s report does not preclude the petitioner from establishing that the Commissioner’s report is not liable to be accepted or that further probe is necessary in the matter. The petitioner can do so at the time of trial as held in Kanaran Nair vs. Madhavan Nair (1996(1) KLT 162). For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl