IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35949 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- IA.9448/2009 IN OS.192/2008 of Ist ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VENPALAVATTOM SREE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE VENPALAVATTOM,ANAYARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TEMPLE COMMITTEE SRI. RAMESAN. BY ADVS.MR.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN MR.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. K.G.JAMES, S/O. K.J.GOERGE, KARIAPURAM HOUSE, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-03. 2. ANNIE JAMES AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. K.G.JAMES, KARIAPURM HOUSE, KESTON ROD, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-03. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35949 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P3 as illegal and premature in the circumstances of the above case. ii) To call for the records leading to Ext.P3 order and to set aside the same as illegal. Iii) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.192 of 2008 on the file of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for declaration of title and injunction, and the respondents are the plaintiffs. Petitioner/defendant had filed a written statement resisting W.P.(C).No.35949 OF 2009 Page numbers the suit claim in which among other contentions the conveyance of the property in favour of the present plaintiff by the transferrer was impeached and also the identity of the property conveyed disputed. It is submitted that on the basis of the pleadings, the learned Munsiff has cast issues arising for adjudication. Pursuant thereto, on the application moved by the respondents/plaintiffs to conduct a local inspection and to measure out the property with the assistance of a surveyor and for filing a report and plan thereof, the court below has appointed an advocate commissioner directing him to furnish such a report and plan with the assistance of a surveyor. Ext.P3 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of that 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 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 W.P.(C).No.35949 OF 2009 Page numbers the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with . Title of the plaintiffs over the property having been disputed by the petitioner/defendant, appointment of a commissioner at this stage, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was premature and so much so Ext.P3 order is liable to be quashed. I cannot agree. After all a commissioner report is a piece of evidence among others and the deputation of a commissioner to conduct local inspection with direction to measure out the property and file a report is only for the purpose of enabling the court to decide the disputed question arising for adjudication in the case. It cannot be relegated to a later stage after determination of the dispute over title canvassed by the defendant. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv