IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9572 of 2009(O) OS.36/2000 OF SUB COURT, KASARAGOD PETITIONER: --------------- P.NARAYANA BHAT, S/O.PARAMESHWARA BHAT, PUDUKOLI HOUSE, BELA VILLAGE, KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. P.SUBRAMANIAN BHAT, S/O.PARAMESHWARA BHAT DURGA PRASAD HOUSE, KOTEKKAR VILLAGE AND P.O MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 2. PARVATHI, D/O.PARAMESHWARA BHAT, NANDA GOKULA HOUSE, ALANTHAYA VILLAGE, GOLITHATTU P.O., PATTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 3. P.GOPALA SHARMA, S/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, DURGA PRASAD HOUSE, KOTEKKAR VILLAGE AND P.O., MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 4. P.MAHESHA, S/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, DURGA PRASAD HOUSE, KOTEKKAR VILLAGE AND P.O., MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 5. P.GANESHA, S/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, DURGA PRASAD HOUSE, KOTEKKAR VILLAGE AND P.O., MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 6. P.UMMAMAHESHWARA, S/O.PARAMESHWARA BHAT, SARAVU HOUSE, NATTANIGE, MUDNUR VILLAGE, PATTUR TALUK. 7. P.NARASIMHA BHAT, S/O.PARAMESHWARA BHAT, ISHWARAMANGALA, NETTANIGE, MUDNUR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, ISHWARAMANGALA P.O., D.K.DISTRICT. 8. P.K.PARAMESHWARA SHARMA, S/O.KRISHNA BHAT, PATTUR, P.O.NEHRUNAGAR, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 9. SUSHEELA, W/O.KRISHNA BHAT, YERMUNJE HOUSE, KEDILA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 10. SRILAXMI, W/O.PANJIGUDDE UDAYASHYAMA, NETTANIGE, MUDNUR VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, ISHWARAMANGALA P.O., D.K.DISTRICT. 11. SARASWATHI, D/O.PARAMESHWARA BHAT, MALLATHERU HOUSE, NEERCHAL VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. 12. PARAMESHWARA N.P., S/O.P.NARAYANA BHAT, SCULPTURE NEST, 248 SECOND SQUARE, AUSTIN TOWN, OPP. RAJA RAJESHWARE TEMPLE, MANGALORE 560 047. 13. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, S/O.SUBRAYA BHAT, SHIVAGIRI HOUSE, ANDINJE VILLAGE, BELTHANGADI TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 14. DEVAKI.K, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT, KUNCHINADKA, KATTUKUKKE VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK. 15. LAKSHMI.K, W/O.VENKATRAMANA BHAT, JAMBINIDLE VILLAGE AND POST, BELTHANGADI TALUK. 16. SUSHEELA, W/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, 'HAMSA',HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, VITTAL, VITTAL KASBA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. 17. SHASHIPRABHA K., W/O.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, KANICHAR, ISHAVASYA, B, MOODA VILLAGE, MODANKAPU POST, BANTWAL TALUK. 18. SREEKRISHNA BHAT, S/O.SUBRAHMANYA BHAT, 'ANUPAM PHOTO AND VIDEO CENTRE, PERLA, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, POST PERLA. 19. MOOKAMBIKA, W/O.PADMANABHA BHAT, BUDRIYA, YELKANA HOUSE, PADANGADI VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADI TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 9572 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The first defendant in O.S.No.36 of 2000, Sub Court, Kasaragode, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 17.3.2009 in I.A.No.49 of 2007, by which the court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the Commissioner's report dated 20.12.2006 and the report and sketch dated 11.11.2002. 2. The suit is for partition. Alleging that the first defendant has indulged in quarrying operations in items 1 and 3 of the plaint schedule, an application was filed to appoint a Commissioner. The Commissioner filed reports and sketch. The petitioner filed I.A.No.49 of 2007 to set aside the Commissioner's reports and sketch. The contention of the petitioner is that the plaint schedule properties have not been identified by the Commissioner. The court below held that no grounds are made out to set aside the Commissioner's reports and sketch. It was held that it is not necessary to identify the entire plaint schedule items. The court below noticed that the Commissioner has identified and located the sites of stone quarries with the help of Village Officials and that those quarries are situated in items 1 and 3 of the plaint A schedule. The Commissioner has W.P.(C) NO.9572 OF 2009 O :: 2 :: given the necessary details in the reports. The Commissioner was examined as PW1. The court below held that the evidence of the Commissioner does not indicate that she has not done the work property or that she has done something which is beyond the scope of the Commission warrant. 3. On a perusal of the Commissioner's report, it is seen that the Commission warrant directs the Commissioner to note and report certain facts and the Commissioner has done the work in accordance with the Commission warrant. The parties did not ask for identifying the entire plaint schedule items. The necessary details are available in the Commissioner's report. It cannot be said that the court below has committed any error or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction. There is no scope for interference in the well considered order passed by the court below. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/