IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6786 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- (OS.NO.206/2002 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- NEDUVANCHERY ATHU ,S/O.MARAKKAR, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. NEDUVANCHERY PATHUTTY, D/O.BEERAN, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED KUTTY, S/O. NEDUVANCHERY KUNHAMINA, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. BEERANKUTTY, S/O.NEDUVANCHERY KUNHAMINA, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SAIDALI, S/O.NEDUVANCHERY KUNHAMINA, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. ABBAS, S/O.NEDUVANCHERY KUNHAMINA, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. ABDULLAKKUTTY, S/O.NEDUVANCHERY KUNHAMINA, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.6786 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question Ext.P9 order, by which, his application to remit the Commissioner's report, has been dismissed by the Court below. 2. The petitioner instituted OS No.206/02 before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur, which was a suit for prohibitory injunction and for fixing the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. Copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. The defendants entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 written statement in the suit. Along with the suit, the petitioner had moved IA No.1293/02 for issuance of an Advocate Commission. That application was allowed and the Commissioner has submitted a report and plan after inspecting the property and with the aid of the Taluk Surveyor. Dissatisfied with the report filed by the Commissioner, the petitioner filed IA No.421/09 to remit the report and plan to the Commissioner once again for proper WPC 6786/10 2 measurement and identification of the property. In the said application, evidence was taken by the Court below. The Commissioner was examined as CW1 and Exts.C1 and C2 were marked. After elaborate consideration of the points raised by the petitioner, the Court below dismissed the IA, finding that the Commissioner has adopted the most plausible and acceptable way of inspecting and measuring the property with the aid of the Taluk Surveyor. The Court below also observed that the petitioner has not been able to show any lacuna or infirmity in the Commissioner's report. By way of abundant caution, the Court below has reserved the right of the petitioner to seek to remit the Commissioner's report if it is found that the report is erroneous or is not helpful to him, during the trial. 3. The above facts are sufficient to show that no prejudice will be caused by the dismissal of the present petition as the Court below has reserved the right of the petitioner to urge all his contentions regarding the Commissioner's report, at the time of hearing the suit. The Court below shall dispose of the suit on the basis of the evidence available before it and untrammeled by any of the observations contained in the order WPC 6786/10 3 dismissing the IA. This Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 6786/10 4