IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31708 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- OS.232/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- KAMMU,S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, THIRUNAVAYA KALATHIL KARUVATTIL, CHELLUR, NADUVATTAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AMINA, W/O. MAMMU, THIRUNAVAYAKALATHIL KARUVATTIL, P.O. CHELLUR, NADUVATTOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. HUSSAN, S/O. MOHAMMED, DO- -DO- 3. JAMEELA, W/O. KUNHAVA, -DO- -DO- 4. SOUDATH, W/O. ABOOBACKER, -DO- -DO- 5. KOUJU, D/O. MOHAMMED, -DO- -DO- 6. FATHIMA, D/O. MOHAMMED, -DO- -DO- 7. KADEEJA, W/O. ABDURAHIMAN, -DO- -DO- 8. KOLAPPURATH GANGADHARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, CHELLUR P.O. NADUVATTOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2,5-8 MR.S.SREEDEV FOR R2,5-8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31708 of 2008(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PLAN AND REPORT DATED 30.6.2005. EXT.P2: REVISED PLAN AND REPORT, DATED 25.9.2006. EXT.P3: ORDER OF THE MUNSIF COURT, TIRUR IN I.A.NO.2100/2006 IN O.S.NO.32/2004 DTD. 20.6.2008. EXT.P4: AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF I.A.NO.1478/2008 DTD. 19.7.2008. EXT.P5: ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR IN I.A.NO.1478/2008 IN O.S.NO.232/2004 DTD. 1.8.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31708 of 2008 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records in O.S.No.232 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Tirur. ii) To pass an order setting aside Ext.P3 and P5 orders. iii) To pass an order allowing Exhibit P4 application.” 2. Petitioner is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.232 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Tirur. Suit is one for fixation of northern boundary of the plaint property. Suit claim was resisted by the contesting defendants by filing written statement. After casting of issues an advocate commissioner deputed by the court filed a report and plan with the assistance of a surveyor. Plaintiff raised objections to that report and sought for setting it aside. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides declined the request for setting aside the report holding that the objections to the report, if any, can be considered at the time of trial. The case was then listed for trial. Plaintiffs again moved an application for W.P.(C).No.31708 of 2008 - Y 2 appointment of a fresh commission which was dismissed vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the learned Munsiff declining to set aside the report directing for relegating the enquiry over the objections raised at the time of trial vide Ext.P3 order and dismissing the application for fresh commission vide Ext.P5 order are 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 counsel on both sides. 4. Perusing Ext.P3 and P5 orders passed by the learned Munsiff with reference to the other exhibits produced and taking note of the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find there is no impropriety in the orders passed by the learned Munsiff. Whatever objections canvassed by the petitioners in respect of the report and plan filed by the advocate commissioner in the suit are directed to the considered at the trial by the Munsiff as evidenced by Ext.P3 order. So much so, no prejudice or injury is caused to the plaintiffs in the suit as their right to challenge the report and plan at the trial stage is reserved under W.P.(C).No.31708 of 2008 - Y 3 Ext.P3 order. Once a commission report and plan had already been collected without testing its value no fresh commission can be appointed to ascertain the very same matter. So much so, dismissal of Ext.P2 application for commission moved by the plaintiff vide Ext.P5 order is proper and correct. There is no merit in he writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-