IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3311 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.292/2008 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- STANLY, S/O.ESAKKU NADAR, GREEN LAND, PUTHUVAIKONAM, DHANUVACHAPURAM DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. R.GOPAN RESPONDENT: --------------- BABU, S/O.JOHNSON, KAVUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE, DHANUVACHAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.3311 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 293 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, challenges Ext.P11 order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing his petition filed as I.A. No. 4634 of 2009 to appoint another Advocate Commissioner on the ground that the report filed by the very same Commissioner one Nemam Jayakumar along with a private surveyor by name Anil Kumar has been taken exception to by him in the suit filed by the petitioner before the same court as O.S. No. 855 of 2007. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 is the rough sketch filed by the Advocate Commissioner Shri. Nemam Jayakumar in O.S. No. 855 of 2007 which is a suit filed by the petitioner against the assignees of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 293 of 2008 and the said sketch contains demonstrable mistakes and if the very same Commissioner is appointed in O.S. No. 293 of 2008 also, the petitioner may not get justice. W.P.(C) No. 3311/2010 : 2 : 3. The petitioner has not so far been able to substantiate his objection to Ext.P2 rough sketch submitted by the aforesaid Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No. 855 of 2007. Hence, merely because the very same Commissioner is appointed in the present suit (O.S. No. 293 of 2008) also, it cannot be assumed that the report and plan submitted by him would be erroneous. It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that Ext.P2 plan submitted by the aforesaid Advocate Commissioner is palpably wrong. It is for him to establish the same during the trial of O.S. No. 855 of 2007. In the absence of anything more, it cannot be said that the court below was wrong in rejecting Ext.P11 application. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to substantiate his contention during the trial of O.S. No. 855 of 2007. Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 3311/2010 : 3 :