IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 293 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.353/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RAMAN, AGED 70, S/O.URUMBAN LATE PAPPU, CHELAKOTTUKARA DESOM, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) MS.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RAVI, S/O.CHULLIPARAMBIL NANU, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. PRAVEEN, S/O.CHULLIPARAMBIL RAVI, CHELAKOTTUKARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. VALSALA, W/O.PALLIOKNNATHU VEETIL JOY, PORATHUR DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. DR.RAJEEV RAO, MIDHILA HOUSE, RESIDING AT JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. BINDHU, W/O.DR.RAJEEV RAO, MIDHILA HOUSE, RESIDING AT JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 6. THANKAMMA CHERIYAN, W/O.MATTAMANAM VEETIL CHERIYAN, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE-DESOM, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. THANKAMMA, D/O.EDAKALATHUR CHACKO, W/O.AKARAPATTY DEVASSY, THRIPAKULAM ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.293 of 2010 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.353 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for cancellation of documents in respect of the plaint property. Challenge raised in the writ petition is against dismissal of an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner filed by the petitioner. Learned Sub judge noticing that already a commission report had been collected and the challenge raised against that report by the petitioner had been turned down by the trial court and also this Court, dismissed the application moved afresh vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of that Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition. 2. Respondents 4 & 5 who are two among the defendants in the suit have entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Perusing Ext.P5 order challenged in the writ petition with other exhibits tendered and taking note of the submissions W.P.(C).No.293 of 2010 - O 2 made, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing the application moved afresh by the petitioner/plaintiff when a report had already been collected and the challenge raised against that report had been turned down. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-