IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28292 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/08/2009 IN EA 64/09 IN EP 56/08 IN OS.68/2003 of MUSNIFF COURT,ADOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND PETITIONER IN E.A.2ND RESPONDENT IN E.P. AND 2ND PLAINTIFF IN O.S.: ----------------------------------------------------------- KALIYAN BHASKARAN, SUBHASH BHAVANAM, VAZHAPPARA, PATHRICKAL MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.G.HARIHARAN, MR.V.RAVEENDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN E.A.PETITIONER IN EP. AND DEFENDANT IN OS: --------------------------------------------------------- KALI VELUMBI, VALUTHUNDIYIL, MAROOR MURI, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, FROM KAPPITHOTTATHIL MAROOR MURI, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28292 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of October 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Set aside Ext.P10 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Adoor in E.A No.64/2009 in E.P No.56/2008 in O.S No.68/2003 dated 17/08/2009. ii) To direct the learned Munsiff Adoor to re-consider Ext.P6 application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner identify the plaint schedule property by appointing a fresh commission. iii) To pass such other orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. W.P.(C).No.28292 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner is one among the decree holders in E.P No.56 of 2008 in O.S No.68 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Adoor. Suit was one for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction. Before the execution court, petitioner canvassed a case that there was some discrepancy in the extent of land shown in the commission report and plan which were accepted by the trial court while passing the decree. He moved a commission application afresh for determining the question regarding the extent of land in the execution proceedings. The execution court, after hearing both sides, declined the request vide Ext.P10 order holding that the question canvassed does not fall under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P10 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.28292 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and also taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the exhibits tendered in the writ petition, I find, no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. Whatever be the merits in the case canvassed by the petitioner, it is needless to point out an adjudication over the question as to what exactly was the extent of land over which the decree holders had title and possession could have been gone into only by the trial court and not by the execution court after passing of a decree. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the view taken by the execution court that the question canvassed does not fall under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In case the decree holders have got any grievance in respect of the decree granted in their favour as W.P.(C).No.28292 OF 2009 Page numbers regards the extent of land which is stated to have been wrongly shown in the report and plan the remedy is to prefer a review petition as provided by law. Reserving the right of the petitioner to ventilate his grievance as provided by law, if any, the writ petition is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv