IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1248 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.598/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT-II,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER (S): ---------------------------- K.T.PRASAD, S/O.GOPALAN, POSH GARDEN HOUSE, KOOTULY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- K.R.T.A.TRUST, REP.BY MANAGING TRUSTEE, K.T.RAMESH, S/O.ACHUTHA, OTHAYAMANGALAM, KOOTULY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P(Civil). NO. 1248 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendant No.1 in O.S.No. 598 of 2007 of court of learned Prl. Munsiff-II, Kozhikode is the petitioner in this proceeding, challenging Ext.P5 order refusing to set aside the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Respondent sued petitioner for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespass into suit property creating documents. Advocate Commissioner identified the suit property with the assistance of a surveyor submitted report and plan. Petitioner filed I.A No.2529 of 2010 to set aside that report contending that the report is inadequate and that matters referred to in the work memo submitted by petitioner has not been ascertained. Learned Munsiff observed that report and plan were submitted in court on 12.11.2009, it was posted for objection on 21.01.2010, petitioner did not prefer any objection and in spite of posting the case for steps on 06.02.2010, petitioner did not take any steps. Petitioner filed I.A No. 2529 of 2010 to set aside report and plan only on 19.06.2010 when the case was to be taken up for trial in the list on 21.6.2010. Learned Munsiff observed that property has been O.P(Civil). NO. 1248 OF 2010 2 identified by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the surveyor and that setting aside the report is not required. Learned counsel contends that on the facts of the case report ought to have been set aside. I have referred to the circumstances under which petitioner filed I.A.2529 of 2010. It is just before the case was to be taken up for trial in the list that petitioner chose to file I.A 2529 of 2010. Learned Munsiff has observed that petitioner can seek remittance of the report at the time of trial if it is made out that the report is inadequate or incorrect. Also since that remedy is available to the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE mns