IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28378 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OS.78/2004 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- KOLAYAKKARAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL HAMZA, S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 60 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT PUSHPAGIRI, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KATTITTA VALAPPIL ABU HAJI, S/O.KUNHAMMED, AGED 56 YEARS, BUSINESS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUPPAM DESOM. 2. PALAKKODAN THARAYIL SAKEENA, D/O.ABDU HAJI, AGED 25 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUPPAM DESOM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C) No. 28378 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the defendant in O.S. No. 78 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba, challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the Munsiff dismissing the petition (I.A.No. 2129/2005) filed by the petitioner to remit the plan and report to the Commissioner appointed at the instance of the plaintiff. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Advocate Commissioner deputed by the trial court at the instance of the plaintiff has erroneously included a portion of the petitioner's property as the property of the plaintiff. The petitioner, therefore, wanted his 8.25 acres of land to be measured and identified by the Advocate Commissioner. 2. As rightly observed by the learned Munsiff in a suit for injunction, the obligation of the plaintiff is only to identify his property. Identification of the property of the defendant is not called for. If under the cover of getting the plaintiff's property identified a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner is W.P.(C) No. 28378/2008 : 2: also wrongly included, the remedy of the petitioner is either to make a counter claim or to institute a separate suit for recovery of possession. In fact, the petitioner claims to have filed another suit against the present plaintiff and another and a commission was allegedly taken and the petitioner has similar grievance with regard to the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner in that case also. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioner is entitled to substantiate his contention by adducing other evidence in the case. Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 28378/2008 : 3: W.P.(C) No. 28378/2008 : 4: