IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 448 of 2011(O) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/01/2011 IN IA.4483/2010 IN OS.641/2009 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. ALUMA UMMAL, W/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY TEESARY MANZIL, THEKKUMKARACHERRY PULLICHIRA PO, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM. 2. JAHAMGEER, S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY BREEZE LAND, THEKKUMKARACHERRY, PULLICHIRA PO, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: --------------- JESSY NAVAS, D/O.THANGAL KUNJU VADAKKAZHIKATHU VEEDU, THEKKUMKARACHERRY, PULLICHIRA PO, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM, FROM KANDATHIL HOUSE, KADAPPALCHERRY, MYNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM - 691 304. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 448 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The defendants in O.S.No.641 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Kollam, are aggrieved by the order dated 20.1.2011 in I.A.No.4483 of 2010, by which the court below allowed the application for appointing a Commissioner. 2. The suit is for an injunction restraining the defendants from constructing a compound wall in the plaint 'A' schedule property, encroaching upon any portion of the plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties or from committing any act of waste, mischief etc. The contention of the defendants is that, as per the decree in O.S.No.494 of 2009, they are entitled to construct the compound wall. The plaintiff in the present suit is not a party to O.S.No.494 of 2009. The Commissioner was sought to be appointed to inspect the property, measure the same and to prepare a plan and report. The court below thought that such a report and plan are highly essential for the proper disposal of the case. Accordingly, the application for O.P.(C) NO.448 OF 2011 O :: 2 :: appointment of a Commissioner was allowed. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if a Commissioner is appointed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved mainly on the ground that if a Commissioner is appointed, delay will occur in the matter of disposal of the suit. 3. Cogent reasons have been stated by the court below for allowing the application. No grounds are made out in the Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interfering with the well considered order passed by the court below. However, the court below shall see that the Commissioner files the report without delay. With the above observations, the Original Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/