IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (RC).No. 1045 of 2010(O) --------------------------- RCP.43/2002 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ WILFRED CULAS, TC 29/298, THENGAPPURA LANE, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.BALACHANDRAN (KULASEKHARAM) SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VIVIAN JOY, BETHEL, TC 34/1398, VALIYATHOPPU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT TC 11/1868(1), THILAK NAGAR, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No. 1045 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. An obstruction petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing E.A. No.709/2010 which was filed by him for issuance of a commission. The purpose of commission application, according to the petitioner, was to collect evidence to show that the building, which is sought to be delivered, is not the building which is subject matter of the rent control petition in which order of eviction is now finally passed. 2. In this original petition, various grounds are raised assailing Ext.P1. Sri.S.Balachandran Kulasekharam, learned counsel for the petitioner, addressed arguments on the basis of those grounds. We have considered the arguments. We have gone through the various exhibits produced along with the original petition and especially Ext.P8 judgment of this court in EX.SA No.10/2007, to which one John Jefry Tennyson, the O.P..No.1045/2010 2 predecessor in interest of the present petitioner, is also a party. On going through Ext.P8, we find it difficult to accept the case of the petitioner that he has got a right to obstruct the execution proceedings. However, we do not propose to say anything touching on the merits of the petitioner's claim. Ext.P1, the impugned order, only declines interim relief of issuing commission. We do not find any reason to interfere with that order under the visitorial jurisdiction of this court, which is very sparingly invoked. We decline jurisdiction and dismiss the original petition making it clear that if the main obstruction petition filed by the petitioner comes to be dismissed against the petitioner after enquiry and it becomes necessary for the petitioner to prefer an appeal, this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner raising as a ground in that appeal the correctness of the impugned order also. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk