IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1374 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------- OS.42/2007 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. JISHA, AGED 49, W/O. B.NATARAJAN, PURAMCHAIL HOUSE, THAIYEZHATH, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK. 2. NATARAJAN, AGED 57, S/O. NEELAKANDAN, PURAMCHAIL HOUSE, THAIYEZHATH, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN, SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI, SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY, SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR, SMT.K.M.RAMYA. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. P.K.GAYI, D/O. KRISHNAN, PATHIYARA HOUSE, THAIYEZHATH, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE. 2. P.K.GEETHA, W/O. BHAULEYAN, VELUTHAMANA HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.1374 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 11th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Kochi in I.A.No.2103 of 2007 in O.S.No.42 of 2007. Petitioners therein, who are petitioners before me also are defendants in the suit. Along with the suit, plaintiffs moved an application for issuance of a Commission and the Commissioner submitted a report which also shows that no notice was given to the defendants. Thereafter, unfortunately, defendants moved the court for issuance of another Commission to note down the particulars. The court should have at least considered that application and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for noting the particulars requested by the defendants. Instead of that the Commission application was dismissed. I am afraid that the learned Munsiff is too technical in these matters. Without considering the objections raised by the defendants and without notice to them and when defendants entered appearance and contentions were raised, it is rudimentary that the court should have permitted the Commissioner to submit a report. WP(C)1374/2008 -:2:- Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the learned Munsiff is directed to remit the original Commissioner's plan and report to the same Commissioner and both the parties are permitted to file a detailed work memo before the Commissioner regarding the points which they want to know. Since there is a direction for remittal the trial of the case be deferred till the Commissioner submits a report and parties are permitted to file objections. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-