IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37431 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.234/2007 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KANDANCHIRA CHOYI, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. CHAKKU, KANDANCHIRA HOUSE, PARAPPUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KANDANCHIRA CHAKKU, S/O. PANGHAN, KANDANCHIRA HOUSE, PARAPPUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHAN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KANDANCHIRA KUMARAN, S/O. PANGHAN, KANDANCHIRA HOUSE, PARAPPUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37431 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S No.234 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. Suit is one for fixation of boundary of a pathway described in 'C' schedule in the plaint. Challenge raised in the writ petition is against Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request of the petitioners/plaintiffs to remit the report and plan prepared by an advocate commissioner who was deputed by the court to conduct a local inspection and measure out the properties. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides was not impressed with the objections raised against the report and plan by the plaintiffs and the request made for remitting the report was turned down vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.37431 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and hence it is dispensed with . A commission report after all is only a piece of evidence in a suit and its value and merit has to be determined with reference to other materials tendered in the case. This court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction cannot sit in judgment as to the value and merit of commission report filed in a suit awaiting trial. I find, Ext.P5 order has been passed by the court below without extending an opportunity to the plaintiffs to substantiate their objections by examining the commissioner and the surveyor who assisted in preparing the report and plan. Probably the plaintiff has not made any request before the court for examining the commissioner. Whatever that be I direct the learned Munsiff to extend an opportunity to the plaintiffs to substantiate their objections to the report and plan by examining the advocate commissioner, provided steps are taken, at trial. W.P.(C).No.37431 OF 2009 Page numbers In case the petitioners take steps and examine the commissioner at trial the learned Munsiff, untrammelled by any of the observations made in Ext.P5 order, shall consider the report and plan with reference to such evidence tendered in the case. I make it clear that I am not directing the learned Munsiff to conduct any preliminary enquiry on the report and plan by examining the commissioner and surveyor otherwise than at the trial of the suit. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv