IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23691 of 2008(U) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2008 IN IA 981/08 IN OS.121/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.K. SUKUMARAN NAMBIAR, AGED 63, S/O.LATE EDVAN CHINDAN NAMBIAR, 273/2, M.D.LINE, HYDERABAD, REP. BY P/A HOLDER P.K.PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, AGED 83, S/O.LATE CHINDAN NAMBIAR, RETIRED TEACHER,EDAVAN (H), P.O. PARIYARAM, PARIYARAM AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KARIYIL MADHAVI, AGED ABOUT 50, W/O. NARAYANAN, PARIYARAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. PARIYARAM TALUK, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 2. KOOLOTH VALAPPIL KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 75, S/O. LATE ARIKKARA RAMAN, PARIYARAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. PARIYARAM TALUK, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 3. FATHER SUKOL, AGED ABOUT 85, NEAR KORAN PEEDIKA, PARIYARAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. PARIYARAM TALUK, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 4. KUNDEN PRAKASHAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 40, EAMBOTT, PARIYARAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. PARIYARAM TALUK, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 5. MADAVALAPPIL KUNHATHI, W/O. KARYIL KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 80, EAMBETT, PARIYARAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. PARIYARAM TALUK, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23691 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents the defendants in O.S.No.121 of 2003, on the file of Munsiff Court, Taliparamba. I.A.No.981 of 2008 is an application filed to remit the report to the Commissioner. Under Ext.P5 order, learned Munsiff allowed the application in part. The report and plan were remitted only for the purpose of indicating the boundaries of the properties demarcated in the plan. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order contending that when the report is being remitted, learned Munsiff should have directed the Commissioner to note and report all the points stated in Ext.P4. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that suit being one for fixation of boundary, Commissioner should fix the boundaries of the plaint schedule property, after measuring the property of the plaintiff as well as defendants, and as Ext.P2 report W.P.(C) No.23691 of 2008 2 shows that the properties were not identified and fixed, learned Munsiff should have directed the Commissioner to fix the properties and report and plan should have been remitted as sought for in I.A.No.981 of 2008. 4. There is force in the submission. When under Ext.P5 order, learned Munsiff directed the Commissioner to file a further report, Commissioner could have been directed to properly identify the property as sought for in Ext.P4. Ext.P5 order shows that the Commissioner did not identify the property of defendants, as defendants did not co-operate and the petitioner submitted that it is not his duty to get the property of the defendants identified. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing Munsiff, Taliparamba, to reconsider I.A.No.981 of 2008 on rejecting the prayer for proper identification and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. If the title deeds of the defendants are made available by the petitioner, learned Munsiff to direct the Commissioner to identify those properties also. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.