IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30913 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2110 /2009 IN OS.294/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- VAKAYIL IBRAHIM, S/O.KUNHEENDU, KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM, KOLAKKADU DESOM, KUTTIPPURAM PO TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT: --------------- KORATH PULIKKATHODUVIL KAMMUNNI ALIAS BAVA, S/O.CHEKKUTTI HAJI, KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30913 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a direction of certiorari or any other writ or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P6 and set aside the Ext.P4 report and Ext.P6 order. ii) To issue a writ of direction directing the court below to issue a fresh commission to inspect the property and to report as per the work memo submitted in Ext.P3.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.294 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Tirur. Suit is one for damages and perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from conducting any unauthorised quarrying of rocks using explosives and compressors, causing nuisance to the plaintiff. In the suit two commission reports had been collected, the earlier one, soon after filing of the suit and the latter one after appearance of the defendant. The second commission report was filed nearly six years after the order was issued. Since the commissioner who filed the earlier report ceased practice, a new commissioner has W.P.(C).No.30913 of 2009 - O 2 to be appointed is stated to be the cause for such delay. In respect of the second report submitted by the commissioner, petitioner/plaintiff had serious objections and filing such objections, he moved for setting aside or remitting the report to have a further report. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application moved for the purpose by the plaintiff vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.p6 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 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. 4. Perusing Ext.P6 order challenged in the writ petition, I find the learned Munsiff has relegated the consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner to the commission report at trial, and, so much so, under the impugned order no prejudice or injury has been caused to the petitioner/plaintiff. It is open to W.P.(C).No.30913 of 2009 - O 3 the petitioner to take steps for examining the commissioner at the trial to substantiate his objections, and needless to point out if the court finds that there is any defect or infirmity in the report requiring it to be set aside or remitted for seeking further clarification, it has to pass appropriate orders thereof. Subject to the above observation, writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-