IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No.5327 of 2008(H) ------------------------------ IA 3779/2007 IN OS.602/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------ VASANTHAN, SREENILAYAM, THAZHE CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR - 18. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KALARIYADATH VALIYAVEETTIL ALEEMA, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THILANNUR, THAZHE CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR - 18. 2. KALARIYADATH ASEEMA, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 07/12/05 IN O.S. NO.602/05 BEFORE THE MUNSIF'S COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DT.13/12/05 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT AND SKETCH DT.03/11/07 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.22/11/07. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.14/01/08 IN I.A.3779/07 IN O.S. NO.602/05 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. ................ PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- W. P. C. No.5327 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Under challenge is Ext.P5 order under which the learned Munsiff dismissed application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for remitting the plan and report submitted by the Commissioner. The suit was for fixation of boundary on the basis of title documents. The Commissioner conducted measurement and submitted plan. Going by the plan it was seen that the property having width of 1.1 metre not claimed by the defendant/respondent also exists on the Western side of the petitioner's property. The contention of the petitioner was that since the respondent has not laid any claim over the above portion of the property, the plan should be remitted to the Commissioner so that W. P. C. No.5327 of 2008 -2- he submits a fresh plan including the above portion of the property also as property belonging to the plaintiff/petitioner and fix the boundary of the plaintiff's property accordingly. As rightly submitted by Mr.V.Premchand, it appears that the defendant also did not lay any claim over the above portion of the property having width of 1.1 metres. The question which I am called upon to decide in this Writ Petition under Article 227 is whether the impugned order can be said to be vitiated to the extent of warranting interference under the above jurisdiction. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is visitorial in nature and will have to be invoked only very sparingly. The above jurisdiction is invoked only when it can be said that the order impugned is per se illegal in the sense that it offends a clear provision of law either statutory or W. P. C. No.5327 of 2008 -3- settled or it can be said that the order is passed without jurisdiction. It can be invoked also when it can be said that the order is perverse in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable training or learning of law. Gauging Ext.P5 by the parametres applicable for exercise of jurisdiction, I do not find warrant for interference. 2. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner to take advantage of observations, if any, in the impugned order at the time when the suit is finally adjudicated by the learned Munsiff. If the suit comes to be decreed or the boundary is fixed in a manner not as desired by the plaintiff and it becomes necessary for the petitioner to go in for an appeal, it will be open to the petitioner to raise the grounds of challenge raised in this Writ W. P. C. No.5327 of 2008 -4- Petition as grounds in that prospective appeal. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE kns/-