IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29933 of 2009(O) -------------------------- O.S.584/01 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V. RAGHUNATHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. VISWANATHAN, KUNNEL HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.V. REJIKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. VISWANATHAN, KUNNEL HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM, MARADY, NOW RESIDING AT RAGUSUDHA HOUSE, MANIMANGALAM, THRISSIVAPEROOR. 2. SUDHAKARAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT RAGASUDHA HOUSE, FROM VELLOPRAMBATHU HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM, THRISSIVAPEROOR. 3. AJITH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, PADIKAL BEENA BHAVAN, VADAKKEN MARADY KARA, MARADY. 4. JAFFERKHAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN RAWTHER, POTTEKANDTHIL HOUSE, RAMANGALAM KARA, MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.29933 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 22nd October, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing exhibit P7 order of the lower court and may be pleased to direct the lower court to pronounce judgment based on the relief sought for in the plaint.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.584 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. Suit is for fixation of boundary, and the respondents are the defendants. After recording the entire evidence and the case being posted for judgment after hearing the parties, the learned Munsiff passed P7 order, remitting the commission report already collected, directing the plaintiff to take out a fresh commission with further direction as to how the properties are to be identified, is the grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Though no contention was raised by any of the defendants in the suit that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and no issue raised with respect to that question, it is submitted, the court in the impugned order has also opined the suit is W.P.C.No.29933/09 - 2 - bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, directing the petitioner/plaintiff to take steps for impleading the necessary parties. Propriety and correctness of P7 order is challenged in the Writ Petition 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 the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and, hence, it is dispensed with. From the submissions made by the counsel and also perusing the exhibits produced with reference to P7 order, it appears, after the entire evidence was taken the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the commission report already collected and tendered before the court is not sufficient to determine the disputed questions arising for adjudication in the suit. The court below cannot be found fault with for remitting the commission report and directing measurement of the property and fixation of the boundaries afresh by another commission. However, the further direction given that it should be done after ascertaining whether there is any reduction in the extent of the properties scheduled in the partition deed was not correct is the grievance of the petitioner. If the petitioner has any W.P.C.No.29933/09 - 3 - grievance thereof, he can canvass the same before the court below by filing a review petition and if any such review petition is filed, the court below has to consider the same on its merits before the fresh commission is taken out on the basis of P7 order. So far as the direction given by the court below for impleadment of necessary parties, it appears, the court below, which had the opportunity to record the entire evidence might have formed an opinion that additional parties have to be brought in the suit for a fair disposal of the suit. With respect to that also, if the petitioner has any grievance, he is free to canvass that also before the court below in the review petition. Subject to the above observation and reserving the right of the petitioner to canvass his grievance by filing a review petition before the court below and directing the court below to dispose of the review petition, if any, filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, the writ petition is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE