IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).NO. 27609 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------- OS.330/2003 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SUDHAKARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KRISHNAVILASATHU KOVILAKOM VEEDU, MATHILBHAGOM MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 67 YEARS, KRISHNAVILASATHU KOVILAKATHU VEEDU, MATHILBHAGOM MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE. 2. K.K.CHELLAMMA, AGED 90 YEARS, OF DO. 3. C.LEELABHAI, AGED 72 YEARS, OF DO. 4. P.SASIDHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, AVANI HOUSE OF DO. 5. P.RAVEENDRANATH, AGED 67 YEARS, INDU SADANAM, VALLAMKULAM MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 6. C.REMA DEVI, QUARTER NO.D7, J.P.COLONY, SEC 4, KORAH C.G., PIN 495 679. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.27609 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendant No.3 in O.S.No.330 of 2003 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thalassery is the petitioner before me. Preliminary judgment and decree for partition were passed observing in paragraph six of the judgment that possession of petitioner over portion of the property (where he is said to have constructed a building) is to be protected to the extent possible while effecting partition by metes and bounds. Grievance of petitioner is that Advocate Commissioner while preparing Ext.P2, report and plan has disregarded that direction. Petitioner filed Ext.P3, objection to the report and plan on 17.07.2008 requesting the learned Munsiff to set aside Ext.P2, report and plan. But without considering the objection learned Munsiff is about to pass a final decree. Petitioner seeks a direction to the learned Munsiff to consider Ext.P3, objection. 2. If petitioner has preferred an objection to Ext.P2, report and plan there is no reason to think that learned Munsiff will W.P(C) No.27609 of 2010 -: 2 :- disregard the objection and pass a final decree. It will be open to petitioner to urge the objection before the learned Munsiff. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv