IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21808 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- O.S.222/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TALIPARAMABA. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- KARONTHAN VEETTIL GANGADHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, KURUMATHOOR AMSOM, PULLIYATHODU DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ MEENANKADA RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.THICKAL VEETTIL KANNAN NAMBIAR, KURUMATHOOR AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.MATHEW KURIAKOSE . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21808 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “1) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction and quash the original of Exhibit P8 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order and allow the I.A.No.1835/2009 and remit the commission report to the same commissioner with a direction to inspect the property and report about the facts stated by the petitioner in Exhibit P6 and also as per the work memo. 2. Petitioner is the defendant and the respondent, the plaintiff in O.S.No.222 of 2006. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. A commissioner appointed by the court, after conducting inspection and measuring the property with the assistance of a surveyor filed report and plan to which the petitioner/defendant filed objections. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, negatived the objections raised by the W.P.(C).No.21808 of 2009 - O 2 petitioner vide P8 order. Propriety and correctness of P8 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. From the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find that P8 order impugned in the petition cannot be sustained. It is reported that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner/defendant to substantiate his objections to the commission report by examining the commissioner. There was also no posting for that purpose. The learned Munsiff straight away heard the matter and negatived the objections. That cannot be appreciated. When objections are raised to a commission report, parties should be given an opportunity to substantiate such objections by examining the commissioner. Merit of the objections to a commission report without examining the commissioner and the surveyor, very often may cause grave injustice. Material aspects to substantiate objections can be brought out only by examining W.P.(C).No.21808 of 2009 - O 3 the commissioner and the surveyor. P8 is therefore liable to be set aside and I do so. But, I make it clear that the merit of the report has to be gone into at the time of trial and if the parties to the suit seek for examining the commissioner and also the surveyor, at that stage, it shall also be allowed. In case the court finds that the report and plan suffers from any infirmity it has to pass appropriate orders as required to meet the ends of justice. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-