IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2059 of 2008(T) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2008 IN IA.327/08 IN IA.9756/07 IN OS.1343/2007 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. M/S.ULTIMA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANTHOSH KUMAR, OPPOSITE TO GANGOTHRI HALL, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 035. 2. SANTHOSH KUMAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.ULTIMA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD., OPPOSITE TO GANGOTHRI HALL, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 O35. BY ADV. SRI.L.ALOYSIUS THOMAS SRI.T.P.SAJAN RESPONDENT: ------------- M.A.THOMAS, SON OF M.T.ALEXANDAR, ODAMPAD HOUSE, SHANKARAMANGALAM, KUZHUVELIPPURAM, KARAKKAL, THIRUVALLA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 1203A, BHAVANI TOWERS,IIT, POWAI, MUMBAI- 400076. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 2059 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the order in I.A. No. 327/2008 in O.S. No.1343/2007 and for other appropriate reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners. The order incorporated in A diary produced before me shows that the court appointed an Advocate Commissioner and also had appointed another expert Engineer namely Mr. Achutha Warrier to assist the Commissioner and file report. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits before me that the principal question that has to be considered and decided is regarding age of the building. He would submit that the court may appoint an Engineer suggested by him as well for the said purpose. 4. I feel it is desirable that the present expert does the job and if there is any particulars that has to be pointed out, let it be done in the form of a work memo by the present writ petitioners. Since the petitioners are not given an opportunity to file their objections in the WPC NO 2059/08 2 commission application, they can refute the allegations if they choose to file any objections to the Commissioner's report and valuation. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: (1) The writ petitioners are permitted to file work memo before the Commissioner and the Commissioner is directed to consider that also while inspecting the property and if any matter is to be looked into by the expert, that also shall be done at that stage itself. (2) The writ petitioners are also permitted to file objections which they have to file in the present IA along with the objections, if any, against the Commissioner's report and valuation when it is filed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 2059/08 3