IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1933 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.353/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFFS ----------------------------------------- 1. PHILIP.P.G., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.RAVU, PANIKKASSERI VEETIL, KARINGATHURUTHU KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. WILLIAM.P.G., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.RAVU, PANIKKASSERI VEETIL, KARINGATHURUTHU KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT ------------------------ KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.RAJAN, MUZHITHOTTIPARAMBIL, KARINGATHURUTHU KARA, CHERANALLUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 1933 of 2011(O) PETITIONERS EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF OS NO.353/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR EXT.P2: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT EXT.P3: COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT EXT.P4: COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DTD.24.11.2010 A/W. SKETCH EXT.P5: COPY OF I.A.NO.519/2011 FILED BY PETITIONER EXT.P6: COPY OF IA NO.520 OF 2011 FILED BY PETITIONER EXT.P7: COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY RESPONDENT IN IA NO.520/2011 EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER DTD.10.3.2011 IN IA NO.520/2011 OF LEARNED MUNSIFF EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER DTD.10.3.2011 IN IA NO.519/2011 OF LEARNED MUNSIFF EXT.P10: COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P4 COMMISSION REPORT. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- O.P(C)No. 1933 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.353 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of North Paravur. The suit is for fixation of boundary and for injunction. A Commissioner was appointed, who filed report and plan . After the report and plan were submitted by the Commissioner, the case was posted for taking steps on various dates after 30.11.2010. The petitioners did not take necessary steps. The suit was listed for trial on 10.3.2011 in the special list. On that day the petitioners filed I.A.No.520/2011 to remit the Commissioner's report. The court below, by the order dated 10th March, 2011 dismissed the application, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. I have gone through the application filed for remitting the Commissioner's report. The averments therein are vague. No specific points are raised as to why the Commissioner's report should be remitted. O.P(C)No. 1933 OF 2011 2 3. In Kanaran Nair v. Madhavan Nair (1996(1)KLT 162), the Division Bench held that an order passed declining to set aside a report of the Commissioner is only interlocutory in nature and nothing contained in it would trammel the trial court from taking a different view if otherwise satisfied at a subsequent stage. The parties are entitled to use other evidence including materials elicited through examination of the Commissioner as a witness for satisfying the court that the findings in the report are faulty. The principles laid down in Kanaran Nair's case, equally would apply to dismissal of an application for remittal of the Commissioner's report. It is made clear that the order does not preclude the court from considering the necessity of remitting the Commissioner's report at a later stage during trial. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the above observations. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms