IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35003 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OAS.101/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 61, S/O.KELA, MAPPILAKUDIYIL HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PAPPI, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, KANNOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. RAJAN, S/O.PAPPY, AGED 38 YEARS, KANNOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 3. SURESH, S/O.PAPPY, AGED 35 YEARS, KANNOTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35003 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.101 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. Suit is one for declaration of title, recovery of possession, prohibitory injunction and damages. Respondents are the defendants who resisted the suit claim filing written statement. An advocate commissioner appointed by the court conducted local inspection, measured out the property with the assistance of the surveyor and filed a report and plan. Petitioner/plaintiff had filed objection to that report seeking for setting it aside or for remitting it for fresh consideration. That application of the plaintiff was posted along with the suit. Now the trial of the suit is in progress and the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff is over. Before commencement of the evidence of the defendant plaintiff pressed for consideration of the application moved by him for setting aside the commission report. The court below declined that request vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.35003 of 2009 - O 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard tot he submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Munsiff relegating consideration of the objections canvassed by the petitioner/plaintiff to the commission report after recording of the entire evidence in the case. No prejudice or injury will be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff by the course adopted by the court. In case the court after taking note of the objections raised by the petitioner to the plan and report find it sustainable warranting the setting aside or remission of the report, needless to point out, it has to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ext.P5 order does not suffer from any infirmity. Writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-