IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18530 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A. 1410/08 in OS.120/2008 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. PUNATHIL RAMAKURUP, AGED 82 YEARS, S/O.KANARAN NAIR, OWN AFFAIRS, KODAMANA VEEDU, ELATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. KODAMANA PADMINI AMMA, D/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, OWN AFFAIRS, KODAMANA VEEDU, ELATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. KODAMANA SOORYA PRABHA, D/O.PADMINI AMMA, AGED 35 YEARS, OWN AFFAIRS, KODAMANA VEEDU, ELATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENT: -------------------- KODAMANA BALAMANI AMMA, D/O.DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, OWN AFFAIRS, KODAMANA VEEDU, ELATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18530 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.120/2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode. The grievance raised is that on the petitions filed by the respondents/defendants in the suit against the commission report and plan prepared by an advocate commissioner deputed for collecting materials necessary for adjudication of the suit after measurement of the suit property, learned Munsiff without adverting to the objections and the merit of those objections, by a cryptic order set aside the commission report and plan. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the facts and circumstances with reference to Ext.P4 order, I find not notice to the respondent is warranted and hence it is dispensed with. W.P.(C).No.18530 of 2009 - O 2 3. I find considerable force in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff cannot be sustained under law. The objections raised by the respondent/defendant are not even adverted to in Ext.P4 order by which a commission report and plan prepared by a commissioner appointed by the court was ordered to be set aside. Though the commissioner was examined as PW1 in the enquiry over the objections raised by the defendants, there is no reference to his evidence in the impugned order. Ext.P4 is patently erroneous and liable to be set aside, and I do so. Learned Munsiff is directed to reexamine the question afresh, in the light of the evidence tendered by the commissioner with reference to the objections raised by the defendants to the report and plan after hearing the counsel on both sides. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Send a copy of this judgment to the court below and hand over a copy to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-