IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22061 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.86/2006 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAJAMMA PILLAI, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O.KUNJULAKSHMI, VRINDAVANAM, KOTTAPPURAM CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SREEDEVI AMMA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, VAVARA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANTAN ASAN, VAVARA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SIVADASAN PILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN PILLAI, KOLLASSERI VEEDU, PADINJAREKKARA MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE,KOLLAM TALUK. 4. CHANDRIKA KUMARI AMMA, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.BHAVANI, VAVARA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAPPURAM CHERRY, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.NANU PILLAI, PUTHANPURA VEEDU, VADAKKEKARA CHERRY, KOONAYIL, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. BINU, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PUTHANPURA VEEDU, VADAKKEKARA CHERRY, KOONAYIL, PARAVOOR VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. BINDU, D/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PUTHANPURA VEEDU, VADAKKEKARA CHERRY, KOONAYIL, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22061 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the orders in I.A.No.823/2009 and I.A.No.888/2009 in O.S.No.86/2006 pending trial before the Hon'ble Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Paravoor and set aside the same thereby allowing those applications, in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.86 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Paravoor, and respondents are the plaintiffs in that suit. Another suit O.S.No.282 of 2005 filed by the respondents as plaintiffs is also pending before the very same court. A joint trial of the two suits has been ordered since the issues to be adjudicated are common though in one of the suits there are some more defendants who are not parties to the other suit. The writ petition is filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs for the reason that an application moved by the petitioner for appointment of a commission to ascertain certain matters has been turned down by the court below. The order of the court dismissing the petition is not W.P.(C).No.22061 of 2009 - O 2 produced, and it is submitted that petitioner has applied for it but, no copy received so far. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 5. From the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is noticed that the cases, after included in the special list for trial, are posted for recording evidence on 11.8.2009. The grievance canvassed by the petitioner is that in O.S.No.282 of 2005, which is jointly tried with his suit, a commissioner appointed by the court on the application of the plaintiffs in that suit, inspected the property and carried out measurements with respect to the resurvey plans and not with reference to the title deed and also old survey records. By carrying out such measurement, it is the case of the petitioner, one room in his residential building was wrongly shown as within the schedule of the property of the plaintiff in O.S.No.82 of 2005. Whatever that be, the petitioner has not taken any steps at the W.P.(C).No.22061 of 2009 - O 3 appropriate stage to ascertain through the same commissioner or by appointment of a different commissioner, the matters which are sought to be ascertained. At the fag end of the suit after it has been included in the special list for trial I am not persuaded by the submissions made by the counsel to give a direction to the court below to entertain the application of the petitioner for ascertaining the matters as desired by him by appointment of a commission, which had been negatived by the court below after hearing the counsel on both sides. Whatever objections the petitioner have against the commission report prepared in O.S.No.282 of 2005 can be canvassed in the trial of the suit. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-