1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3817 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.740/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. DEEPA VIMAL, W/O.VIMAL, AGED 36 YEARS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. 2. SARASWATHI, W/O.BHASKER, AGED 65 YEARS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. V.MENON RAGHAVAN MELETH, MELETH MADOM, ELAMANA ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA. 2. DR.M.VENUGOPALAN, NAKKANETH, ELAMANA ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA. 3. PADMAJA VENUGOPAL, NAKANETH, ELAMANA ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA. 4. M.S.MENON, 30-GANGA APARTMENTS, NEW DELHI. 2 5. LAKSHMIKUTTY, MELETH LANE, KOTTAPPURAM ROAD, THRISSUR. 6. K.P.VISALAKSHI, B11-SILVER PALM TATA SHERWOOD HOUSING COLONY, BANGALORE. 7. K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN, B11-SILVER PLAM TATA SHERWOOD HOUSING COLONY, BANGALORE. 8. DR.SAROJAM KARUNAKARAN, THEJUS, PANAMCHERI LANE, THRISSUR. 9. DR.INDIRA MELETH, INDEEVARAM, MELETH LANE, THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.3817 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petitioners are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.740 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The said suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein is one for recovery of possession of the Plaint Schedule Property. The plaintiffs applied for a Survey Commission to measure and demarcate the properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The said application was allowed by the Sub Court and a private surveyor by name Sreekumar was appointed to assist the Advocate Commissioner in making the measurements etc. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said private surveyor is taking a partisan attitude favouring the plaintiffs and in a manner detrimental to the interests of the petitioners and that if he is allowed to complete the work, it will be adverse to the interests of the petitioners. The W.P.(c)No.3817 of 2010 2 petitioners also have a grievance that their work memo was not being considered by the Advocate Commissioner. They, therefore, filed I.A.Nos. 8657 and 8658 of 2009 to remove the private surveyor and to accept the work memo and direct the Advocate Commissioner to report the matters mentioned in the work memo also. The court below as per Ext.P4 order dated 11.12.2009 dismissed I.A.No.8657 of 2009 but allowed I.A.No.8658 of 2009 as regards points 1 to 5 mentioned in the work memo. It is aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.8657of 2009 that defendants 1 and 2 have filed this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated before me the contentions of the petitioners. 4. It is too early to accept the petitioners' contention that the private surveyor is adopting a partisan attitude favouring the plaintiffs. The petitioners cannot pre-empt the whole exercise by attributing motives to the private surveyor. The petitioners have no tangible grievance about W.P.(c)No.3817 of 2010 3 the survey procedure adopted by the said private surveyor. In case the report and plan to be filed hereafter contains demonstrable errors, the petitioners can very well file their objections and seek either a remission of the report and plan or appointment of a fresh Commission or Surveyor. Without considering the end product by the Commissioner and the Surveyor, it is too early to assess the work done by the said persons. Reserving the right of the petitioners to challenge the report and plan to be filed by the Advocate Commissioner assisted by the private Surveyor in case of demonstrable errors, this writ petition is dismissed. Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj