IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3215 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [OS.NO.159/2002 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THALASSERY] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- C. HARIDASAN, S/O.P.P. KUNHIRAMAN, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 006. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K, SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL, SRI.N.N.ARUN BECHU, SRI.K.DILIP, SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES, SRI.K.MOHANAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- K.P. NANDINI, D/O.P.P. KUNHIKANNAN, THANDAPPURAM, MUNDERI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 591. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.3215/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 159/2002, DT. 03/06/2002. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN O.S. 159/2002, DT. 22/02/2003. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, DT. 20/03/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE FRESH REPORT ALONG WITH THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, DT. 04/03/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT AS I.A. 1491/2011, DT. 09/06/2011. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 1491/2011, DT. 18/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3215 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.159 of 2002 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Thalassery is aggrieved by Ext.P6, order dated 18.07.2011 whereby learned Munsiff refused to remit the report and plan to the Advocate Commissioner, a second time. Respondent filed the suit for prohibitory injunction against construction of compound wall encroaching into the suit property and for mandatory injunction. Learned counsel submits that later, the plaint was amended to incorporate a prayer for recovery of possession of a portion of the suit property as well. Petitioner filed Ext.P2, written statement contending that respondent has no property in resurvey No.23/2. The Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P3, report and plan. Petitioner objected to that and requested for a remission. That was allowed. Commissioner submitted Ext.P4, revised report and plan. Again there was objection to the revised plan and report and petitioner filed Ext.P5, application to remit the same. That request was rejected by Ext.P6, order which is under challenge. Learned counsel submits that the Surveyor has not given the extent of properties in the plan appended to Ext.P4, report. O.P(C).No.3215 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. I have gone through Ext.P4, plan and report and find that properties were measured with the assistance of the District Superintendent of Survey. In Ext.P4, the survey boundaries of the properties are shown in black line. Apart from that, properties claimed by the parties as per their respective documents of title are shown separately. The properties in the possession of the respective parties are also shown in the plan. Learned Munsiff has pointed out that though it is contended that properties are not correctly shown in the plan, what exactly is the so called mistake is not stated. I fail to understand what further details are required to be given in the report and plan. 3. So far as the existence of mud kila and laterite wall pleaded by petitioner are concerned, learned Munsiff has observed that same can be elicited by other evidence. I must bear in mind that neither the Advocate Commissioner nor the Surveyor was examined in support of Ext.P5, application. But I make it clear that Ext.P6, order will not stand in the way of examination of the Advocate Commissioner or Surveyor in the course of trial. Since that liberty is available to the parties, I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. With the observations made above, this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-