IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 321 of 2010(M) ------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SANTHOSH RAJ, S/O. LATE KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KARTHIKEYA MANGALAM, THITTAYIL VEEDU, SEEMARA VILAKOM LANE, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. OMANA KUNJAMMA, W/O. LATE KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 64 YEARS, NARAYANA MANGALAM, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.V.SURESH MR.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT: --------------- SYAM RAJ, S/O. LATE KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 41 YEARS, NARAYANA MANGALAM, ANAYARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.321 of 2010 - M --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To grant a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction as the court may consider appropriate calling for the records relating to Ext.P9 and quashing it.” 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2133 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the respondents is the defendant. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant from trespassing upon the plaint properties and from demolishing the compound walls on its four sides and also from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiffs. Resisting the suit claim the defendant filed written statement disputing the identity of the plaint schedule properties. A defence was canvassed that he had a right of way through portions of the plaint property. Grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that untenable contentions have been raised by the defendant only to prolong the litigation. Pursuant to delivering of W.P.(C).No.321 of 2010 - M 2 his defence the defendant had applied for appointment of a commission for survey measurements of the plaint schedule properties, which according tot he counsel, is not necessary to resolve the disputes arising for adjudication. Though the commission application was objected to the court below without analysing and appreciating the issues for adjudication in the suit, according to the counsel, allowed that application. Ext.P9 is the copy of the order passed by the learned Munsiff allowing the commission application filed by the respondent/defendant. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P9 order invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. 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 it is dispensed with. 4. Perusing Ext.P9 order with reference to the other exhibits tendered in the writ petition including the plaint and also the written statement, it appears, no impropriety or illegality can be imputed in the discretion exercised by the learned Munsiff in allowing the commission application moved by the defendant when W.P.(C).No.321 of 2010 - M 3 he had disputed in his written statement the identity and description of the plaint property. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that after getting a favourable order on the commission application the intention of the respondent/defendant is only to delay the proceedings which if permitted would cause serious injury to the plaintiffs. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs also intend to take out a commission. It is open to the petitioner to move an application to ascertain the matters they seek for determination by commissioner, and if such an application is filed the court below shall pass appropriate orders thereof so that the commission already deputed can determine those matters as well. Having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that untenable contentions are advanced to prolong the litigation, there will be a direction to the court below to monitor the execution of the commission order by the advocate commissioner and to take prompt steps for a speedy disposal of the suit. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-