IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26168 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- [OS.NO.362/2008 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- CHINNAMMA @ ELIZABETH, AGED 69 YEARS,W/O.THOMAS,PASCAL M-6/62, PRASANTH,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.KESAVAN NAIR, MR.K.G.CLEETUS. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- JOLLY @ GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.VARKEY XAVIER,EDAKKAT HOUSE, KUMBALANGHY VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26168 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) By issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Munsiff Court, Kochi to direct the Commissioner appointed by Ext.P2 order to ascertain the facts mentioned in Ext.P3. ii) By clarifying that the direction in Ext.P2 to ascertain the market value under Section 7 includes ascertainment of market value under Section 7(2) also. iii) By granting such other reliefs that are just and necessary. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.362 of 2008 on the file of the Additional W.P.(C).No.26168 OF 2009 Page numbers Munsiff Court, Kochi. Suit is one for declaration and injunction, and the respondent is the defendant. In the light of the contentions raised by the defendant in his written statement, an issue was settled in the suit whether proper valuation has been made in the plaint and also regarding sufficiency of the court fee. Considering that issue preliminarily, the court ordered for appointment of an advocate commissioner to ascertain the market value of the suit property. Petitioner / plaintiff thereupon moved a work memo before the advocate commissioner and also before the court to ascertain whether the suit property is an agricultural land and also its annual income. The commissioner desired to have directions from the court to comply with the request made under the work memo. Grievance canvassed by the petitioner in the writ petition is that though the court was invited to pass orders on the work memo and issue appropriate directions to the advocate W.P.(C).No.26168 OF 2009 Page numbers commissioner, the court has simply posted the case for the commission report. In such circumstance, petitioner has approached this court and filed the above writ petition seeking the above mentioned reliefs 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. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. The plaint property comprises a building might have weighed with the court in not passing orders on the request made by the petitioner / plaintiff. Whatever that be, whether the plaint property is an agricultural land or not is a question to be considered after the details thereof are collected by the commissioner. Request of the petitioner that the W.P.(C).No.26168 OF 2009 Page numbers matters sought for in the work memo also be directed to be ascertained by the commissioner in the given facts of the case cannot be brushed aside lightly. The court below shall issue appropriate directions to the advocate commissioner to ascertain the matters covered by the work memo filed by the petitioner. I make it clear, whatever be the report of the commissioner, the court has to form its own views on the merit of that report. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv