IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22410 of 2009(O) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2009 IN IA. 1983/2008 IN OS.287/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SIVADASAN, S/O. POOVATHUMKADAVIL SUBRAMANIAN, NELPPINI DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- MOHANDAS, S/O. POOVATHUMKADAVIL SUBRAMANIAN, NELPPINI DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22410 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for records leading to Ext.P4 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P4. ii) Issue such other orders, writs or direction as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. iii) Award the costs of this proceeding to the petitioner. W.P.(C).No.22410 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.287 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction and the respondent is the plaintiff. In the suit, respondent / plaintiff moved an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to conduct a local inspection and measure the suit property with the assistance of a surveyor. Petitioner / defendant objected that application. The learned Munsiff after considering the merit of the application with reference to the objections raised by the defendant allowed it by passing Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.22410 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P4 order, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Ext.P4 reveals that in the written statement filed by the petitioner / defendant, the identity of the suit property has been disputed. When that be so, without proper identification of the suit property no decree of injunction can be passed. So much so, there is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below allowing the commission application moved by the plaintiff. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, //TRUE COPY// JUDGE vdv P.A TO JUDGE