IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1043 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2009 IN O.1283/2009 IN IA.6948/2006 IN OS.3781/2005 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SEETHARAMAN, S/O.RAMACHANDRAYYAR, KEENAKSHIKALLYAN, POONKUNNAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, TRICHUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.MULLAPPILLY PARUKUTTY AMMA, POONKUNNAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, TRICHUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TRISSUR, TRISSUR. ADV.MR.K.B.MOHANDAS, SC FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1043 of 2010 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.3781 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur. The above suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and first respondent is the plaintiff and second respondent/second defendant in the suit. Resisting the suit claim petitioner/first defendant has filed a written statement in which he has disputed the identity of the suit property as well. An advocate commissioner deputed by the court at the instance of the first respondent/plaintiff after conducting local inspection and measuring out the property with the assistance of a surveyor has filed a report and plan to which the petitioner/first defendant filed serious objections. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, turning down the objections raised by the petitioner/first defendant, dismissed his application for setting aside the report and plan. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.1043 of 2010 - O 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and perusing Ext.P4 order challenged in the writ petition and other exhibits tendered, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. A commission report obtained in the suit or proceeding is only one among the pieces of evidence and it is primarily procured to assist the court to resolve the disputed questions arising for adjudication so as to have a fair and proper disposal of the case. Writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to sit in judgment on the merit of a commission report collected in a suit or proceeding and that too during pendency of such suit or proceeding. However, after taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, I find that irrespective of Ext.P4 order passed by the court below negativing the objections raised to the report and plan petitioner/first defendant can be permitted to canvass them at the trial of the suit provided steps are taken for examining the advocate commissioner and also the surveyor to substantiate the objections raised against the report and plan. In case the petitioner takes such steps for examining the advocate W.P.(C).No.1043 of 2010 - O 3 commissioner and also the surveyor at the trial the court below shall consider the report and plan with reference to the evidence let in untrammelled by any of the observations made in Ext.P4 order. In case the court find the report suffers from any infirmity after appreciating evidence so let in, needless to point out the court has to pass appropriate orders on the acceptability of the report and plan in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation, writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-