IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26271 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- [OS.NO.225/2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- V.CHENTHAMARAKSHAN,S/O. T.C.VELAYUDHAN, EDAKADU KALAM,CHITTALANCHERRY,MELARKODE VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAVARAMEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE,CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. GOPALAN, S/O.RAKKANDI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANTHANAPURAM, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. S.SIVAKUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARYAMBALLAM, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26271 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records in O.S No.225/2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chittur leading to Exts.P4 to P10 and direct the court below to pass appropriate orders to consider Exts.P9 and P10 ignoring the observations regarding the plotted sketch made in Exts.P7 and P7 orders, by means of a writ of mandamus or such other writ in the like nature, direction or order. ii) To award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner. iii) To pass such other orders fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. W.P.(C).No.26271 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.225 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chittur. Suit is one for fixation of boundary and injunction, and the respondents are the defendants. An advocate commissioner appointed by the court admittedly conducted inspection over the suit property more than once. Previous report and plan prepared by the commissioner with the assistance of a surveyor had been remitted by the court with some directions in the light of the objections raised by both sides. The third report and plan submitted by the advocate commissioner is pending for consideration by the court. At this stage, petitioner has approached this court and filed this writ petition raising a grievance that some of the observations made earlier by the court while considering the previous commission report and plan if not ignored will cause severe prejudice and injury to him in challenging the correctness and W.P.(C).No.26271 OF 2009 Page numbers merit of the present report and plan pending consideration. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. Needless to point out that the commission report and plan collected in a suit is only a piece of evidence. Its value and merit hasto be decided not independently but with reference to the other materials tendered in the suit. Whatever be the observations made by the court in the previous report and plan which had been remitted back to the commissioner for getting a fresh report and plan, it is open to the petitioner to canvass his objections before the court with reference to the present report and plan. The court below has to W.P.(C).No.26271 OF 2009 Page numbers evaluate and consider the objection on its merit. This court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction cannot express any opinion on the merit of a commission report or the objections raised to such report. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv