IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16926 of 2007(M) ---------------------------------------- OS.NO.340/2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ANANDAJA PANICKER, MOODETHU VEETTIL, PILAPPUZHA MURI, HARIPAD VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.P.SREEKUMAR, MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VISWANATHAN, KOCHAYATHY VEETTIL, NAGIARKULANGARA MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE. 2. SETHULEKSHMI, VISWANATHAN, KOCHAYATHY VEETTIL, NAGIARKULANGARA MURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16926/2007-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPORT, PLAN AND SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO P1 REPORT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A. NO. 663/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/03/2007 IN I.A. NO. 663/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.16926 OF 2007 (M) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "To set aside the P1 report, plan and sketch submitted by the advocate commissioner as well as the P4 order” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.340/2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Haripad. Suit is one for declaration, prohibitory injunction and for recovery of possession. The defendants resisted the suit claim and advanced a counter claim in their written statement. An advocate commissioner appointed by the court measured the suit property with the assistance of a surveyor and filed a report and plan to which the petitioner/plaintiff filed objections disputing the correctness of the measurements and identification of the suit properties. The commissioner and surveyor were examined in the light of the objections raised, and after hearing both sides, W.P.(C).NO.16926 OF 2007 (M) 2 learned Munsiff negatived the objections. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request of the plaintiff for setting aside the report and plan and remitting them for fresh consideration. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Measurements shown by the commissioner in his plan are incorrect and the properties have not been properly identified with reference to the documents is the grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to impeach Ext.P4. I am afraid this Court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction cannot go into the merits of a commission report which is after all a piece of evidence to be let in a case for adjudication of the disputes arising in a suit. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against the commission report and plan, he can canvass them, in case an adverse decision is entered against him in the suit in the appeal which is statutorily provided from such decision. This court in more W.P.(C).NO.16926 OF 2007 (M) 3 than one judicial pronouncement has held that even in revision, under Section 115 CPC, the merit of a commission report cannot be gone into as that question can be examined in an appeal, if need be, from the decision ultimately passed by the trial court. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-