IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31846 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/09/2008 IN IA 1327/08 IN OS.135/2003 OF MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD. .................... PETITIONERS : ---------------------- 1. RAJALEKSHMI, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O. HAIMAVATHYAMMA, JYOTHIS VEEDU, MUTHUKULAM THEKKUM MURI, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE. 2. JAYAKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. UNNITHAM OF – DO. 3 ANANDAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, ANANDA BHAVANAM, MUTHUKULAM THEKKUM MURI OF -DO- 4. VENUGOPAL, AGED 48 YEARS, THURUTHIYIL VEEDU -DO- MURI 5. SIVARAMAN NAIR, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. KESAVAN NAIR, NAMBALETHU VEEDU DO- MURI. BY ADV. SRI.G.ANANTHANARAYANAN RESPONDENT: ----------------------- MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. GOPALA PANICKER, PULIYARA PUTHENPURAYIL, MUTHUKULAM THEKKUM MURI, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 31846 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for petitioners. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.135 of 2003 of the Munsiff's Court, Haripad. That suit was filed by the respondent for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespass into plaint A and B schedule properties, committing waste therein or obstructing the respondent from worshipping in the Kavu situated in the plaint B schedule property. Petitioners field written statement contending that two cents comprised in Survey No.566/18 is owned by the kudumbayogam in which they are also members and that the disputed Kavu is situated in that property. Court below appointed an Advocate Commissioner to identify the extent of the disputed property. Advocate Commissioner submitted report and two plans, one based on the old survey plan and the other, based on resurvey plan. Petitioners objected to that report and plans on several grounds, one of which being that the commissioner was not required to measure the property with reference to the resurvey plan. Learned Munsiff dismissed I.A No.1076 of 2007 W.P(c) No. 31846/ 2008 2 filed by the petitioners, as per Exhibit P10 order dated 16/08/2008 observing that there was no material irregularity in the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Learned Munsiff also observed that the admissibility of the report in evidence will be decided after taking evidence in the suit. Not satisfied with that, petitioners filed I.A No.1327 of 2008 for review of that order. Learned Munsiff found that the request for review was not allowable. Learned Munsiff has also stated reasons for arriving at that decision. While disposing of that application also, learned Munsiff has observed that admissibility of the report in evidence will be decided at the time of trial after taking evidence. Observations contained in Exhibits P10 and P19 orders are sufficient to protect the interest of the petitioners. It is open to the petitioners to raise their contentions regarding the inadmissibility of report at the time of trial as observed by the learned Munsiff. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm