IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 72 of 2008(H) ----------------------- OS.250/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- KUMARAN,AGED 57 S/O.KUNJIKRISHNAN,CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SERVANT,MAZHUVANNUPARAMBIL HOUSE,KUZHIKADU KARA PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SUBRAMANIAN,,AGED 66,S/O.KUNJIKRISHNAN, MAZHUVANNUPARAMBIL HOUSE,KUZHIKADAU KARA, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. PRIYADARSINI, AGED 32, D/O. SUBRAMANIAN,PLAMKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, NEAR MANGALAM SCHOOL, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 3. ANILKUMAR, AGED 38 S/O. DEV. PALMKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, NEAR MANGALAM SCHOOL ,ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE KOTTAYAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 72 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor in I.A.809/06 in O.S.250/02. The suit is one for fixation of boundaries. Along with the Commission application the plaintiff has requested the Court to direct the Commissioner to note and report about the 12 points that are raised in the petition. The Court directed the Commissioner only to look into points No. 1 to 4 and 11 and 12 and rejected the prayer with respect to points 5 to 10 and 13. As the writ petitioner did not deposit the batta the Commission application was dismissed for default. Thereafter the suit was also dismissed. Though a writ petition was filed challenging the order as the suit was dismissed, this Court permitted the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move fresh application after the suit is restored. It is on the basis of that the present writ petition is W.P.C 72 OF 2008 -:2:- filed. 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has taken me through the query Nos.5 to 10. A reading of the queries would reveal that they are also incidental and necessary for a proper appreciation of the case and it may not cause any prejudice to the defendant also if the prayer is allowed. When a Commissioner is inspecting the property and when certain factual matrix available in the property which is considered to be necessary for a proper adjudication is requested to be noted by the Commissioner the Court shall allow such prayers and I am afraid that the Court below has gone wrong in disallowing those prayers. Therefore I modify the order of the Court below and direct the Court below to give instructions to the Commissioner to answer all the queries, No. 1 to 12. If on account of the same some additional particulars are to be noted by the Commissioner on behalf of the defendants, the defendants are also permitted to file work memo before the Commissioner to note those points. Similarly, if the plaintiff wants any W.P.C 72 OF 2008 -:3:- additional particulars to be noted other than query Nos.1 to 12 that also may be noted and reported by the Commissioner. Needless to say that the Court shall proceed with the trial either after the receipt of the Commissioner's report and permit the parties to file objection to the Commissioner's report. The Court is directed to restore the Commission application. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-