IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 430 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.192/2009 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- VISWAMBHARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, VALIPARAMBU HOUSE, MANAPPULIKAVU, KUNNANOORAMSAM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C.AUGUSTINE SRI.RAFEEK.V.K. SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JANAKI,W/O.SUBRAMANYAN, PALLIKADU HOUSE,PAMPAMPALLAM, PALAKKAD TALUK. PIN-678 008. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P.(C).NO.430 OF 2010 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the father and power of attorney holder of the defendants in a suit for fixation of boundary and injunction. He has filed this original petition challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Palakkad, turning down the request of the defendants to provide assistance of a Taluk Surveyor to the advocate commissioner to execute the commission order. Ext.P6 is the copy of the order passed by the learned Munsiff, which would indicate that the name of a private surveyor to assist the commissioner had already been suggested by the defendants as well. Perusing the materials tendered with the original petition and considering the submissions made by the counsel, it is evident that the report previously prepared on the objections raised by plaintiff was remitted to the advocate commissioner with some directions. The commissioner was also O.P.(C).No.430/2010 2 directed to seek the assistance of a private surveyor to identify and locate the property. Pursuant to that order, it appears, both parties submitted the names of the private surveyors for assisting the advocate commissioner in executing the commission order. After submitting the name of the private surveyor, it seems, wisdom dawns on the defendants that the execution of the commission order require to be done with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor. Thereupon they moved Ext.P4 application to direct the Taluk Surveyor to assist the advocate commissioner for identifying the suit property. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and what transpired in the suit earlier, evidently, the learned Munsiff rejected the request vide Ext.P6 order. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the facts and circumstances presented and the submissions made, I find this is not a fit case where exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. What is the prejudice, if any, O.P.(C).No.430/2010 3 caused to the petitioner in the private surveyor assisting the advocate commissioner, and why the assistance of a taluk surveyor for that purpose is necessary, has not been made out. Further more, the advocate commissioner as a court officer executes the commission order, and in such order he is only assisted the surveyor in identifying the property. Whether survey measurements and identification are done by a Taluk Surveyor or private surveyor is not of much value. So long as the surveyor is qualified and competent to do such work, and thus, assist the commissioner to execute the order, I do not find any merit in the petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp O.P.(C).No.430/2010 4