IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31512 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.406/1980 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA ............................ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DASA PRABHU, AGED 69, S/O.NARAYANA PRABHU, PUNNACKAL HOUSE, CHERTHALA, NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA, NORTH VILLAGE. 2. SUDHAKARA PRABHU, S/O. NARAYANA PRABHU, OF DO........DO.... BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAMACHANDRA PRABHU, S/O. GIRIPRABHU, PUNNACKAL HOUSE, CHERTHALA, VADAKKUM MURI, CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE. 2. DAMODARA PRABHU, S/O. NARAYANA PRABHU OF DO...DO.... 3. VASUDEVA PRABHU, S/O. NARAYAN PRABHU, OF DO......DO......... 4. GOPALAPRABHU, S/O. NARAYANA PRABHU. OF DO.......... 5. SREENIVASA PRABHU, S/O. VASUDEVA PRABHU OF FO... 6. VASANTHA BAI, S/O. GOPALA PRABHU, OF DO....DO. 7. USHA, D/O. GOPALA PRABHU OF DO........DO... 8. PRAKASA PRABHU, S/O. GOPALA PRABHU, OF DO.... 9. JAYA, D/O. GOPALA PRABHU, OF DO... 10. SINDHU, D/O. GOPALA PRABHU, OF DO..........DO....... 11. BINDHU, D/O. GOPALA PRABHU, OF DO.........DO......... 12. SULOCHALA BAI, W/O. VASUDEVA PRABHU OF DO....DO..... 13. DINISH PRABHU, S/O. VASUDEVA PRABHU OF DO...DO...... 14. SULOCHALA BAI, D/O. VASUDEVA PRABHU OF DO....DO.... 15. SREELATHA, D/O. VASUDEVA PRABHU, OF DO.....DO..... 16. GEETHA, D/O. VASUDEVA PRABHU, OF DO.....DO... THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31512 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are the defendants in O.S No. 406 of 1980 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Suit is for perpetualinjunction, and the first respondent is the plaintiff. Suit filed nearly three decades ago still awaits final disposal, after trial, since the decisions passed earlier had been challenged from one forum to another and even to the apex court. Trial court had dismissed the suit, which was upheld by the first appellate court. In second appeal reversing the dismissal this court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The decision rendered by this court was challenged by the defendants before the apex court and the case was remitted for fresh consideration to this court. Pursuant thereto, W.P.(C).No.31512 OF 2009 Page numbers after reconsidering the second appeal again hearing both sides, this court rendered Ext.P3 judgment. In Ext.P3 judgment, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, the case was remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after considering Exts.A19 and A20 which had been produced as additional evidence before first appellate court, in the light of any further oral evidence, if any, by the plaintiff. The defendants were also permitted to produce rebuttal evidence to substantiate their contentions. After such remission, the case is now pending disposal before the court below. Petitioners/defendants have moved an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner advancing a case that substantial changes have been made over the plaint property after the institution of the suit, and such changes have to taken note of for a fair and proper W.P.(C).No.31512 OF 2009 Page numbers disposal of the case. Having regard to the limited scope of enquiry as ordered in the remand made by this court, the learned Munsiff turned down the commission application vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusing Ext.P6 order with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also theother exhibits tendered with the writ petition, I find that the dispute arising for adjudication relate to the administration of a temple. Plaintiff claiming to be the managing trustee and asserting his entitlement to administer the temple sought for a prohibitory injunction against the defendants from interfering with his right to do so. In such a suit, the changes which have come to suit property W.P.(C).No.31512 OF 2009 Page numbers after its institution may not have much significance or value unless one or other party has got a case that there was commission of waste over the plaint property by any of the parties in the suit. Merely because some changes have taken place in the suit property by demolition or construction of any structures, and, especially, in view of the fact that the scope of the remand order is limited, I find the learned Munsiff was perfectly justified in holding that no commission application for the determination of the matters sought for by the defendants can be entertained. There is no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P6 order. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv