IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 320 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.232/2008 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER -------------------- C.M.THANKACHAN, AGED 65, S/O.PAPPY, CHARIVUKALAYIL RENNY BHAVAN, ULLAROOR MURI,KULANADA VILLAGE, KULANADA BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.M.JOY, AGED 67 S/O.LATE PAPPY,CHARIVUKALAYIL GRACE SADAN, ULLAROOR MURI, KULANADA VILLAGE, KULANADA P.O PIN- 689503 ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- O.P (C) No.320 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S No.232/2008 of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta has filed this petition. The above case has now been included in the special list for trial to commence from 01/11/2010. The grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that Ext.P4 application moved to consider the merit of the report filed by the advocate commissioner, in respect of which he had raised serious objections, has not been considered by the court despite the matter being brought to the notice of the court on more than one occasion. The only relief canvassed at the time of hearing of the petition was a direction to the court below to consider P4 application so that the validity of the report filed by the advocate commissioner can be considered preliminarily, and subject to the result of the orders on the report further trial can be proceeded with. In case the objections raised by the petitioner/plaintiff to the commission report is found sustainable, it is submitted by the counsel, necessarily the report has either to be set aside or remitted, for having a fresh report or further clarification, and that being so, if trial is allowed to proceed recording other evidence, it may cause hardship to both parties and also result in unnecessary wastage of time of the court as well. O.P.(C) No.320 OF 2010 - 2 - 2. Respondent has entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. Above suit filed by the plaintiff is stated to be one for fixation of boundary, in which, no doubt, the report filed by the commissioner in all likelihood may have decisive value. That being so, the application moved by the petitioner (P4) deserve to be considered before parties are directed to lead evidence in the case. The court below is therefore directed to consider P4 application on merits and then, proceed with the case subject to the orders passed on the above application. It is open to the court below to proceed with the trial recording the evidence of the advocate commissioner on the listed day, if steps are taken in advance by the petitioner for such examination, and then dispose P4 application on its merits, and thereafter proceed with the trial of the case on the basis of the order passed on P4 application. Petition is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv