IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18566 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.446/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.1477/2006 IN O.S.NO.446/03 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLOOR. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE KARAPPULLY CHATHU, KARAPPULLY HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE AND AMSOM, PERINGANAM P.O., KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MOHANAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KOOTTALA KOCHUKUTTY AMMA, KOOTTALA HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, PERINJANAM PL.O., KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18566 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.446/2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction which is still pending adjudication. The merit of a commission report filed by a commissioner deputed by the court to measure out the property was challenged by the petitioner by filing objections. In the enquiry over, the objections raised the commissioner was examined and report and plan were exhibited in evidence. The learned Munsiff, after the enquiry found no merit in the objections raised by the defendants. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the learned Munsiff negativing the grounds raised by the petitioner to set aside the report and plan. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Munsiff is challenged by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P2 order impugned in the writ petition, I find notice to the respondents is not necessary, and it is dispensed with. W.P.(C).No.18566 of 2009 - O 2 3. This Court more than once has made judicial pronouncement that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC it cannot sit in judgment over the merit of a commission report, which is after all is a piece of evidence collected by deputing an officer, most often an advocate of the court, for adjudicating the disputes involved in the suit or proceedings. If at all any of the parties in the suit or proceedings is aggrieved by any order passed by the court in negativing the objections raised over any report and plan prepared by the commissioner, they have every right to challenge it in the appropriate forum, if any adverse decision is ultimately passed against them in the suit. Supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 cannot be invoked for reexamining the merit of a report and plan prepared as a piece of evidence for adjudication of the disputes involved in a suit, that too, at a stage when the issues raised are yet to be adjudicated in the trial of the suit or proceedings. The petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-