IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25764 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1240/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- LIO PAULO,S/O.PARAPPILLY KOCHUNNI, ALA DESOM,S.N.PURAM,KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SUBRHAMANIAN,S/O.OORKOLIL KUMARAN, ALA DESOM,S.N.PURAM VILLAGE,KODUNGALLUR. ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.25764/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 27.10.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 30.7.2005 BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.2.2009 IN I.A.NO.2243/2008 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25764 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.1240 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur. Suit is for fixation of boundary and perpetual prohibitory injunction and the respondent is the defendant. On the application moved by the plaintiffs, two in number, an Advocate Commissioner deputed by the court conducted local inspection, measured the plaint property and prepared a report and plan with the assistance of a Surveyor. Plaintiffs raised objection to that report, and after considering such objection, the learned Munsiff remitted the report and plan directing the Commissioner to conduct measurement of the property afresh with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor. Pursuant to such remission, the Commissioner again measured out the property with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor and prepared a report and plan. At that stage, the respondent/defendant moved an WPC.25764/09 2 application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain certain matters. The learned Munsiff allowed that application vide Ext.P3 order discarding the objections raised by the plaintiffs that already a report had been collected in the case, and its merit has not been considered. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Notice given, the respondent has entered appearance. A report was called for from the learned Munsiff as to whether the second commission under Ext.P3 order had been issued without considering the validity and merit of the previous commission report collected in the case. It is reported that the application moved by the respondent/defendant had been allowed on cost, and so much so, the merit of the previous commission report was not examined. Procedure followed by the learned Munsiff to say the least is incorrect as a second commission can be issued only after the examination of the merit of the previous WPC.25764/09 3 commission report. This Court in Swami Premandanda Bharathi v. Swami Yogananda Bharathi (1985 KLT 144) has deprecated the practice of issuing commissions one after the another without examining the merit of the previous report. Ext.P3 order is set aside, and the learned Munsiff is directed to consider and dispose the application moved by the respondent/defendant, only after appropriate orders are passed on the acceptance of the previous commission report collected in the case. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp