IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31998 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/10/ 2009 IN IA 1334/2009. IN OS.271/2006 of MUN-MAGI COURT, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- NIZAR, S/O. FASALUDEEN, SHAMLA MANZIL, KALAKODUCHERRY, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, FROM PUNNAVILA VEEDU, KALAKKODU CHERRY, POOTHAKKULAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VIJAYAKUMARI @ KUMARI, D/O. JANARDHANA PILLAI, KOIKKAL VILA VEEDU KNOWN AS KUZHIVILA VEEDU, KOLAKKOTTU CHERRY, POOTHAKKULAM, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31998 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) To call for the records leading to Exts.P4, P5, P6, P7, P8 and P9 and to quash/set aside Ext.P9 order in I.A No.1334/2009 dated 30/10/2009 in O.S No. 271/2006 on the file of Munsiff Court, Paravur. ii) To grant such other reliefs in the interest of justice. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.271 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Paravur. After completion of evidence in the case, reviewing suo motu a previous order by which ascertainment of certain matters sought for by the defendant by way of commission had been disallowed, the learned Munsiff passed Ext.P9 order giving a fresh opportunity to the defendant to take out a commission for identification of the suit property taking a view that such identification is essential for a fair disposal of the suit on merits. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged W.P.(C).No.31998 OF 2009 Page numbers in the writ petition by the petitioner/ plaintiff 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 hence it is dispensed with . The materials collected in the suit are sufficient to enter a decision on the disputed questions involved and Ext.P9 order passed by the court below that too suo motu reviewing the earlier order disallowing the application of the defendant for identification of the suit property at the fag end of the trial was not proper and correct is the submission of the counsel. Perusing Ext.P9 order with reference to other exhibits tendered in the petition and also taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find there is no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P9 order passed by the learned Munsiff for determination of identification of the property by taking out a commission by reviewing the previous order. Suit has been filed for a W.P.(C).No.31998 OF 2009 Page numbers decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction. The defendant in his written statement, it is submitted, has set up a counter claim for a declaration that he is having a right of easement by grant over a way running through the plaint property. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other than preparation of a rough sketch, no measurement of the property had been carried out though the advocate commissioner had conducted local inspection twice and prepared two reports. What is now available in the case is a rough sketch prepared by the commissioner. After taking evidence, the learned Munsiff rightly and correctly found that identification of the suit property by taking out a commission is essential and the earlier order passed by the court disallowing the request of the defendant required to be reviewed. Ext.P9 order so passed by the learned Munsiff is perfectly justifiable. No interference with that order is called for. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE