IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34099 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.593/2006 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS --------------- 1. SHAJI, S/O.K.P.LAKSHMANAN, AGED 43 YEARS,RESIDING AT UDAYABHAVANAM, KALARCODE,ALAPPUZHA. 2. K.P.LAKSHMANAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,RESIDING AT UDAYABHAVANAM,KALARCODE,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA SMT.D.SARITHA SMT.M.K.RAJITHA RESPONDENT: --------------- USHA C.KURUP, AGED 55 YEARS,RESIDING AT PATHIRAPPALLY HOUSE, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.34099 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 26th November, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: 1. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash Exhibit P6 order dated 22.10.2009. 2. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the court below to appoint a Taluk Surveyor to assist the Advocate Commissioner for the measurement of plaint schedule properties. 3. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, to quash the proceedings of the court below dated 18.11.2009 by which it has directed the Advocate Commissioner to contact with phone to appoint a Taluk Surveyor to assist the Advocate Commissioner. 4. To issue appropriate orders or directions to postpone the inspection fixed to 28.11.2009 till the appointment of a Taluk Surveyor. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in a suit for injunction, and the respondent is the plaintiff. P2 is the copy of the plaint. Petitioners W.P.C.No.34099/09 - 2 - have resisted the suit claim by filing P4 written statement, in which among other contentions, they have also disputed the identity and description of the plaint property and an application moved by the respondent/plaintiff for appointment of an advocate commissioner to locate and measure out the plaint property with the assistance of taluk surveyor has been allowed by the court. The grievance espoused by the petitioners is that without seeking the assistance of the taluk surveyor, the advocate commission deputed by the court is proceeding to execute the commission order with the assistance of a private surveyor. Petitioners seek a direction to the court below to appoint a taluk surveyor to assist the advocate commissioner in locating and measuring out the property, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even in the commission application moved by the respondent/plaintiff, a request was made for appointing the W.P.C.No.34099/09 - 3 - taluk surveyor to assist the advocate commissioner, but, no orders thereof were passed by the court while allowing that application. Advocate Commissioner is proceeding to execute the commission order with the assistance of a private surveyor and that will cause injury to the petitioners/defendants is the submission of the counsel. I do not find any merit in the submissions. If at all, the petitioners have a case that private surveyor is incompetent to carry out the measurement, but, only the taluk surveyor, for any reason whatsoever, it has to be brought to the notice of the learned Munsiff for issue of appropriate directions/instructions to the advocate commissioner. Approaching this court and invoking the writ jurisdiction for issue of directions to the court below to appoint a taluk surveyor to assist the advocate commissioner cannot at all be entertained. Reserving the right of the petitioners to ventilate their grievance, if any, before the court below as provided by law, the writ petition is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE