IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRP.No.854 of 2008 ------------------------ OS.353/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- RAMAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. URUMBAN LAGTE PAPPU, CHJELAKOTTUKARA DESOM, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANT:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAVI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. CHULLIPARAMBIL NANU, CHIYYARAM, VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. DR. PRAVEEN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. RAVI,CHULLIPARAMBIL CHELLIKKODUKARA, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. CHERIYAN, AGED 70 YEARS, (DIED), S/O. MATHAI, MATTAMANA HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 4. VALSALA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. PALLIKUNNU VEETTIL JOY, PURATHOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 5. DR. RAJEEV RAVU, AGED 50 YEARS, MITHILA HOUSE, RESIDING AT STAFF QUARTERS OF JUBLEE MISSION HOSPITAL, CHEMBUKKAVU DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR. CRP.No.854 of 2008 -2- 6. BINDU, 40 YEARS, W/O. DR. RAJEEV RAVU, MITHILA HOUSE DO....DO.... 7. THANKAMMA CHERIAN, 60 YEARS, S/O. CHERIYAN, MATTAMANA HOUSE RAYAMANGALAM DESOM AND VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. R. P No.854 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.353/04 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. He filed I.A.3124/08 in the said suit seeking for an order to set aside the Commission Report filed in the case on the application of the third defendant. The suit itself is for cancellation of several documents. The court below has vide order impugned considered the request made by the petitioner. It is stated that the Commissioner with the help of the Thaluk Surveyor has finally filed report on 17/03/08, after more than three months for execution of the order. According to the court below, the Commissioner has filed however, detailed report and sketch which describes the exact lie and position of the scheduled property and the petitioner had C. R. P No.854 of 2008 -2- not filed any objection to the Commission Report till 04/04/08, the date on which the suit stood posted for evidence in the special list. It is along with filing of objections to the Commissioner's Report on 04/04/08 that the above interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to set aside the Commissioner's Report. His case is that Advocate Commissioner has not ascertained the matters sought for by him in the work memo filed by him before the Advocate Commissioner. The court below in the impugned order has observed that Advocate Commissioner has ascertained all matters asked for to be ascertained in the application for issuance of commission as well as in the work memo and that those are matters which are to be considered in evidence. It was also observed that the petitioner has not brought out anything in the above application which C. R. P No.854 of 2008 -3- furnishes ground for setting aside the Commissioner's Report and that he did not even want the Commissioner to be examined assailing his report and that petition to set aside the Commission Report was being filed without any valid reason with the intention of prolonging the litigation. It is also observed by the court below that there was direction issued from this Court in Writ Petition No.18996/07 to dispose of the suit within four months and the direction is issued by this Court on submission made by the parties and on their request. The parties cannot disable the court below and put them to difficulties in disposing of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner was also not able to convince me that the Commission Report requires to be remitted back and certain other details are also to be collected, especially when the suit is one for setting aside a document alleged to C. R. P No.854 of 2008 -4- have been caused to be executed by him in favour of the second defendant and the subsequent assignments made on the basis thereof. This C.R.P in the circumstances, is devoid of merit and is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-