IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 84 of 2010(O) ----------------------- OS.261/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.ABDULLA, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, KMC 12/163, PILIKUNJE, KASARAGOD KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- G.MOHAMMED, S/O.G.MOIDIN KUNHI, IMRAN MANZIL, NEAR OLD CHOORI JUMA MASJID, P.O. RAMDAS NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.84 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records relating to the case and to quash Exts.P6 and P9. ii) Pass such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. iii) Direct the respondents to pay the cost of the proceedings to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No. 261 of 2009 on the file the Principal Munsiff Court, Kasaragode. Suit is for recovery of possession of two buildings situate in 'A' schedule property, and the respondent, the plaintiff. Suit claim is resisted by the petitioner/defendant by filing a written statement in which apart from disputing the title of the plaintiff over the buildings situate in 'A' schedule property which are sought to be recovered from his possession, the identification of 'A' schedule property was also disputed. On an application moved by the plaintiff for W.P.(C).No.84 OF 2010 Page numbers identification of plaint 'A' schedule property, negativing the objections raised by the petitioner/defendant, the court below ordered for deputing a commission to measure out the property with reference to the title deeds with the assistance of a surveyor. Ext.P6 is the copy of that order. Petitioner/defendant moved an application to review Ext.P6 order. That application after hearing both sides was turned down by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P9 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 and Ext.P9 orders is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Suit has been filed only for recovery of the two buildings for which alone court fee had been paid by the plaintiff and so much so, in the present suit, respondent/plaintiff cannot canvass or seek for measuring out of 'A' schedule property in which the buildings are stated to be situate is the main argument projected by the learned Munsiff to assail Ext.P6 and Ext.P9 orders passed by the learned Munsiff. Perusing Ext.P6 and Ext.P9 orders with reference to other exhibits W.P.(C).No.84 OF 2010 Page numbers tendered and taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff allowing the commission application for measuring out 'A' schedule property with reference to the title deeds of the plaintiff especially where identification of that property had been disputed by the defendant in his written statement. After all commission report is only a piece of evidence which is procured to assist the court to adjudicate the disputes arising for consideration in a suit or proceeding for its fair and proper disposal. Appointment of a commission for identification of the property has to be looked into with reference to the questions to be adjudicated and not on the basis of the relief canvassed in the suit. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv