IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 20914 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------ OS.1714/2006 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANTI @ ANTONY, S/O.KOTTOKKARAN AIPPU,OLLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- JOSE, S/O.APPADAN DEVASSY, APPADAN HOUSE, OLLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT VILLA NO.26, SKYLINE SWING FIELD HOMES, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY PO, ERNAKULAM-682 024. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.20914 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 06th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is defendant No.2 in O.S. No.1714 of 2006 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Thrissur. Challenge is to Ext.P6, order refusing to set aside report and plan at the instance of petitioner. Respondent sued petitioner and another for recovery of possession of plaint B schedule on the strength of title alleging that it is part of plaint A schedule and which was trespassed upon by petitioner and another. Petitioner contended that there is no such property as plaint B schedule and that portion described as B schedule belonged to him. Learned Munsiff appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor measured the property and submitted report and plan. Exhibit P4 is the objection preferred by petitioner and Ext.P5 is the application to set aside report and plan. Learned Munsiff found no justifiable ground to set aside the report and plan and held that it is open to the petitioner to challenge report and plan at the time of trial of suit. Observing so Ext.P5, application was dismissed as per Ext.P7, order. That order is W.P(C) No.20914 of 2010 -: 2 :- under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there was a request by petitioner to ascertain puramboke land in the possession of respondent but that has not been done by the Commissioner. It is also stated that Commissioner has shown a portion of the land comprised in Sy.No.784/5 as belonging to respondent over which respondent has no claim. 2. No evidence was recorded on Ext.P5, application to set aside the report and plan. I must bear in mind that petitioner who is defendant No.2 in the suit is opposing the prayer of respondent for recovery of possession on the strength of title and himself is not claiming any relief in the suit. It is for the respondent to prove his title and possession over the disputed property in the way he claimed with the assistance of a proper plan. There is no reason why at the request of petitioner in the circumstances stated above report and plan must be set aside and particularly as learned Munsiff has made it clear that petitioner can challenge report and plan at the time of trial of suit. When that right of petitioner is reserved and I stated petitioner has not sought any relief in respect of the suit property I W.P(C) No.20914 of 2010 -: 3 :- do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Resultantly, Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv