IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15628 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.288/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. NEENA MARY PHILIP, W/O.BABU JOSEPH, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT KELOTHUCHIRA HOUSE, THANNERMUKKAM KARA, THANNERMUKKAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. BABU JOSEPH, S/O.P.K.JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 3. K.U.KUNJUKUNJU, S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO. DO. BY ADV. MR.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- JOSEPH PAUL, S/O.PAUL, AGED 48 YEARS, KONATHAPPALLIL HOUSE, NARAKKAL P.O., NARAKKAL VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.15628 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 5th June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1. To issue a writ of prohibition setting aside Ext.P6 order dated 28.2.2009 of the Sub Court, Kottayam dated in I.A.No.5060 of 2008 in O.S.No.288 of 2007 and dismiss the I.A. 2. Grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.288/07 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam. Suit was one for injunction. An application moved by the respondent/plaintiff for appointment of a commission to conduct a local inspection and to determine the various points raised by the plaintiff, after hearing both sides, was allowed by the learned Sub Judge under Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the Writ Petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Previously this court had set aside Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Sub Judge on the commission application which was ordered without notice to the defendants, submits the learned counsel. Subsequently, Ext.P6 W.P.C.No.15628/09 - 2 - order is passed without considering the objections raised by them, is the grievance canvassed. Defendants have serious disputes as regards the documents produced by the plaintiff basing on which the relief of injunction is claimed, submits the counsel. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and the circumstances involved, I find, the objections canvassed against appointment of a commission and also for impeaching Ext.P6 order passed by the court below is of no merit. Petitioners/defendants will get sufficient opportunity to substantiate their contentions in the trial of the suit. I do not find anything improper in the discretion exercised by the learned Sub Judge in allowing the application moved by the plaintiff in the matter of appointment of a commission which, no doubt, is necessary for a proper adjudication of the suit on its merits. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE