IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35857 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2009 IN IA.1307/2009 IN OS.2/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT: --------------- N.A.KOCHUBAVA,S/O.LATE N.ARJUNAN, NIKATHITHARA HOUSE, VALIYAVATTOM, NJARAKKAL, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SMT.TULASI PANICKER RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: --------------- K.K.MANI,KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALIYAVATTOM, NJARAKKAL, KOCHI TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.35857 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi. Suit is for declaration of title and fixation of boundary and the respondent is the plaintiff. On the application moved by the respondent/plaintiff, the court below has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local inspection and measure the plaint property with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor. Petitioner/defendant had filed objection to the commission application moved by the respondent/plaintiff contending that survey measurements have to be carried out only with the assistance of a Deputy Superintendent of Survey and also on the basis of the survey records. Without considering any of the objections raised by him, the court below has passed Ext.P3 order even discarding his request to ascertain certain matters if at all a commission WPC.35857/09 2 is appointed, is the grievance espoused in the writ petition. 2. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent/plaintiff is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. There appears to be some force in the grievance espoused by the petitioner that his request for ascertainment of matters by filing a work memo was totally not taken note into account while Ext.P3 order was passed by the court below. It is open to the petitioner to move an application before the court below if at all the petitioner wants to ascertain any matter at the time of inspection by the Advocate Commissioner, and any such application moved shall be disposed on its merit after hearing both sides. In case, the Commissioner has already conducted a local inspection before any such application is moved by the defendant, then also, the court below will consider the request of the petitioner/defendant and pass appropriate orders on such application. The same Commissioner may be deputed to ascertain the matters, if any, sought for by the defendant WPC.35857/09 3 subject to payment of batta as fixed by the court. Writ petition is accordingly disposed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp