IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16257 of 2005(I) -------------------------- OS.1456/1998 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANSON GREGORIOUS (MINOR), REP. BY HIS FATHER SRI.JOHN GREGORIOUS, SOUPARNIKA SADAN, KAKKAKUSHI, KALLIYOOR, VENGANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VIOLET LEELA, T.C. 18/1218, ANNA BHAVAN, THRIKKANNAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. JYOTHI KUMARI, T.C. 18/1218, ANNA BHAVAN, THRIKKANNAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16257/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO.1456/98 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S. NO.1456/98 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/2/2005 IN I.A. NO.512/2005 IN O.. NO.1456/98 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSINER IN I.A. NO.9704/01 IN O.S. NO.1456/98 BEFORE THE 1ST ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 16257 of 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 is Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff in I.A. No.512/2005. The above I.A. was filed by the defendant in a suit, which was for recovery of possession, for deputing an advocate commissioner for submitting a report regarding the value of improvements claimed to have been effected in the suit property by the defendant. The learned Munsiff under Ext.P3 dismissed the I.A. taking the view that there is a commission report already available in the records on the above aspects. 2. Heard Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the respondents. Sri.Reghunath would draw my attention to Ext.P4 and submit that Ext.P4 does not report about the value of the trees which had been planted on the property by the petitioner defendant. Ext.P4, according to the learned counsel, cannot be WPC.No.16257/2005 2 treated as a report on the value of improvements on the plaint schedule property on the basis of inspection. 3. Sri.R.S.Kalkura would submit that the writ petitioner claims value of improvements mainly on account of a building which he claimed to have been put up on the suit property and also towards the value of the trees planted by him on the suit property. As for the building, Ext.P4 reports that building is a newly constructed shed which is put up only after the commissioner had visited the suit property on two occasions. Ext.P4, at any rate, contains report regarding value of the shed. Therefore, there is no scope for deputing the fresh commission for getting report regarding the value of that shed. 4. Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that the learned Munsiff was not justified in dismissing the I.A. filed by the petitioner completely. Setting aside the order, I direct the learned Munsiff to depute the very same commissioner Smt.Rakhi Ravikumar, provided, she is even now practising in the court to inspect the suit properties once again and file a report regarding the value of the improvements claimed to have been effected on the property other than the building. This will be done within WPC.No.16257/2005 3 three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. Once the report of the commissioner is obtained, the suit will be listed for trial and disposed of at the earliest. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk