IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4898 of 2009(G) ------------------------- OS.269/2006 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SREE PRIYA, D/O. CHANDRAKALA, VALIAVEEDU, PADINJATTUKARA VADAKUM MURI, KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 2. ASWATHY, D/O. CHANDRAKALA, -DO-..DO.... BY ADV. MR.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INDRANAD, S/O. VENKIDESWARA VADYAR, VALIA VEEDU, PANDINJATTUMKARA VADAKUM MURI, KUTHIATHODU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 2. BALACHANDRA BHAT, S/O. VENKITESWARA VADYAR OF ...DO..-DO- 3. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND VIJAYAKUMARI, D/O. VENKIDESWARA VADYAR OF ...DO-DO- 4. URMILA DEVI, D/O. VENKIDESWARA VADYAR, OF...DO..DO... 5. RETHNA BHAI, W/O. INDRA NAD OF..DO..DO.... R1 TO R5 BY ADV. MR.E.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4898/2009 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.269 OF2006 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, CHERTHALA. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.NO.3111 OF 2008 FOR APPOINTING A COMMISSIONER. P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED TO I.A.NO.3111 OF 2008. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.3111 OF 2008 DTD. 15/09/2008. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.3953 OF 2008 DTD. 21/01/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4898 of 2009 - G --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.269 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Suit is one for declaration of title and consequential injunction, and the respondents are the defendants. When the suit came up in the list for trial, petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to identify the suit property. The defendants in the suit resisted that application submitting that they have no dispute over the identity of the suit property. Learned Munsiff after considering the application for appointment of advocate commissioner with reference to the objections found the application highly belated and dismissed it holding it lacked bona fides. Another application moved by the plaintiff to remove the case from the special list was also dismissed. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order. Petitioners moved an application for review of that order. That was also dismissed vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of those orders are challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory W.P.(C).No.4898 of 2009 - G 2 jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. From the submissions made and also perusing the materials produced with the writ petition, I find that in a previous suit a plan has been prepared identifying the suit property as well. Plaintiffs are not parties to that suit is the submission of the learned counsel to contend that a fresh plan identifying the suit claim is essential. Having regard to the admitted fact that the defendants have no dispute or challenge to the identity of the suit property and further that the application for appointment of a commission was moved only after the case was included in the special list for trial, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff disallowing the application. Writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-