IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 25419 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------- OS.122/2009 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR OS.552/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THANKAPPAN, AGED 65, S/O.KUMARAN, VARIKKATTIL HOUSE, AIRAPURAM KARA, AIRAPURAM VILLAGE, KUNANTHUNADU TALUK, PIN-686 689. 2. RAGHAVAN @ RAMU, AGED 57, S/O.KUMARAN, VARIKKATTIL HOUSE, AIRAPURAM KARA, AIRAPURAM VILLAGE, KUNANTHUNADU TALUK, PIN-686 689. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ PREETHI, AGED 30, W/O.LATE V.P.NATHAN, KIZHAKKEVARIKKATTIL, AIRAPURAM KARA, AIRAPURAM VILLAGE, KUNANTHUNADU TALUK, PIN-686 689. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) NO.25419 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The message that binding authorities have given does not appear to have percolated down to the lower levels as is clear from the single line order passed by the learned Munsiff. 2. The Supreme Court in CCT v. Shukla & Bros. ([2010] 4 SCC 785) has stated that reasons are the soul of the order and that non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper proper administration of justice. Applying that principle I must think that the order passed by the learned Munsiff lacks soul. In a hotly contested suit for recovery of possession of the disputed property, damages and prohibitory injunction respondent filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify the properties with assistance of Surveyor. That application was also hotly contested as in the case of the suit on the ground that suit itself is barred in view of judgment and decree in O.S.No.582 of 1993 between petitioners and predecessor-in-interest of the C.W.P(C) No.25419 of 2010 -: 2 :- respondent, according to petitioners concerning the very same property. Learned Munsiff however, was pleased to pass an order in the following lines, “Heard. Petition allowed.” Learned counsel for petitioners contended that on the facts of the case appointment of Advocate Commissioner was not warranted since the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the judgment and decree n O.S. No.582 of 1993. 3. Notwithstanding that learned Munsiff has passed a single line order, I do not consider it necessary to send the matter back to the learned Munsiff to pass a proper order in view of the facts of the case involved and remitting the application would only cause inconvenience to the parties. But I remind the learned Munsiff of the necessity to pass speaking orders. Respondent claimed title over plaint A to C schedule properties and alleging that petitioners trespassed into a portion of the said properties sought recovery of possession of the trespassed area. To Ext.P8, application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, petitioners responded contending that respondent got assignment deed executed in her favour when O.S. No.552 of 1993 was pending and that property of respondent and petitioners are separate by northern boundary of R.S. No.300/11 and 288/1 and by the southern boundary of the property C.W.P(C) No.25419 of 2010 -: 3 :- comprised in R.S. No.300/10. It is necessary to identify the suit property in the light of the contentions raised. Hence appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with assistance of a Surveyor is necessary. On facts I do not find reason to interfere with the ultimate order passed by the learned Munsiff. 4. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner requested that since this Court is not interfering with the order for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, petitioners may be permitted to get the property identified as the very same property is involved in O.S. No.552 of 1993. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to file work memo in the court of learned Munsiff in respect of matters which are required to be ascertained through Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor and the learned Munsiff shall pass appropriate orders on such work memo. With the above observation this Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv