IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16992 of 2008(W) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/04/2008 IN IA 936/07 IN OS.393/1982 of MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ PODDAR PLANTATIONS LIMITED, RIPON ESTATE MEPPADI 673 577, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KADEEJA, D/O.ALAVIMULLA, RESIDING AT RIPPON, MEPPADI POST, MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. CHEMPAN MUHAMMED RESIDING AT RIPON MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16992 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 order, wherein on the request of the Commissioner, made under Exts.P1 and P2 memos, trial court directed petitioner/plaintiff to deposit additional remuneration of Rupees Two Lakhs (one lakh each to the Commissioner and Taluk Surveyor). Learned Munsiff directed the payment based on the submission of the Commissioner that altogether roughly 420 acres are to be measured and plaint schedule properties is to be identified as directed by this Court in the Second Appeal, and it would take about 250 days to measure the property, and therefore, Commissioner who is an independent counsel, practicing at Vythiri Court, has to be paid proper remuneration. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that while passing Ext.P3 order, learned Munsiff did not properly consider whether the work of 250 days is necessary for W.P.(C) No.16992/2008 2 executing the warrant. It is submitted that if the Commissioner has verified whether there is a re-survey plan, and on that basis, whether it is necessary to measure the entire 420 acres, it would not have been necessary to execute the work for 250 days. It is, therefore, submitted that Ext.P3 order is to be quashed. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P3 order as such. If the grievance of the petitioner is that while considering Ext.P3 order, learned Munsiff did not consider the exact nature of the work to be executed and the probable expense to be met, remedy of the petitioner is to file a petition for review before the trial court. With that liberty, this petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the findings in Ext.P3 will not preclude the court from passing appropriate order, in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.