IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 636 of 2011(O) ------------------------ I.A.NO.3189/2010 IN OS.497/2010 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER :PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF : -------------------------------------------------- RAJU S/O.RAMAN MANANGAL VEEDU (MANAKKAL VEEDU) PANDARAKKAVU, EAST YAKKARA KUNNATHURMEDU.P.O. MANAPPULLIKKAVU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVI KRISHNAN W/O.KRISHNAN MEENAKSHINILAYAM PUTHUNAGARAM, KARIPPODE KARIPPODE P.O., CHITTUR TALUK. PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 503. 2. KANDAMUTHAN S/O.KRISHNAN @ ANDI RUBBER TAPPER KORAMKATTU KALAM ERANJIMANKAD ERANJIMANKAD P.O. NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 330. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.636 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The plaintiff in O.S.No.497 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Principal Munsiff, Palakkad, challenges the order dated 25th November, 2010 in I.A.No.3189 of 2010 by which the court below rejected the prayer made by the petitioner to remit the Commissioner's report and plan. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He claims a right of way through the plaint B schedule property. The claim is disputed by the respondents. A Commissioner was appointed to inspect the property. He submitted a sketch and report. The plaintiff wanted a further inspection by the Commissioner to measure and locate the plaint A and B schedule properties on the basis of the plan in the final decree for partition in which the parties to the suit were O.P.(C) No.636/2011 2 parties. The court below held that it is not necessary to remit the Commissioner's report and sketch. The plaintiff and the defendants were parties to the suit for partition in which a final decree was passed. It is stated in the order that pathways are provided to the sharers for ingress and egress to the respective plots. The plaintiff claims an implied grant over the plaint B schedule property. The question is whether the plaintiff has such a right. For a decision of that dispute, it is not necessary to remit the Commissioner's report. The order passed by the court below is right. No interference is called for in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties are relatives and if an opportunity is given to them to explore the possibilities of settlement, they need not fight litigations. The counsel submits that there may be a O.P.(C) No.636/2011 3 direction to the court below to adjourn the case so that the possibilities of a settlement could be explored. To facilitate the court below to consider this request, the suit shall be adjourned for a period of two weeks. The court below shall ascertain the wishes of the parties for a mediation as well. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl Handover copy