IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37294 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2009 IN IA.3759/2008 IN OS.202/2008 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- T.K.DILIP SUKUMAR, S/O. SUKUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, LIC AGENT, RESIDING AT PANAYAN PARAMBIL, NEAR MADHAVA BHAVAN, KANNUR AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR -1,KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.N.NAGARESH MR.K.BABU MR.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT: --------------- M.P.ANIL,S/O.KELAN, AGED 44 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT "ADWAYIDAM" PAYYAMBALAM AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37294 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for money for the work allegedly done by him in respect of a building put up by the petitioner/defendant. Suit claim was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement. On an application moved by the respondent/plaintiff an advocate commissioner was deputed by the court to ascertain the matters sought for as to the work allegedly done by the plaintiff in the building. After conducting a local inspection the advocate commissioner filed a memo that a direction be given to the plaintiff to report the additional carpentry work which he had carried out in the building. When the copy of the memo was served on the counsel for the defendant an endorsement was made that the defendant should be given an opportunity before passing orders on the basis of that memo. Without hearing him the court below passed an order on the memo directing the W.P.(C).No.37294 of 2009 - O 2 plaintiff to furnish the additional work done by him is the grievance espoused by the petitioner/defendant to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court to quash that order passed by the court below. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and it is dispensed with. 3. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sub Judge on the memo filed by the advocate commissioner by issuing directions to the plaintiff to furnish the details of the additional work allegedly done by him in the building it is open to the petitioner to move a petition for reviewing that order before the court below. Whatever be the directions issued on the basis of the memo, prima facie, it appears, that order is unlikely to cause any prejudice to the petitioner/defendant as he can show that the additional works which are claimed by the plaintiff, if they are not actually done by him, were done by someone else. That is a matter of evidence. For the time being, for a proper and fair adjudication of the suit W.P.(C).No.37294 of 2009 - O 3 the direction issued by the court on the basis of the memo cannot be considered to be improper. However, I reserve the right of the petitioner to seek for appropriate relief as provided by law. if at all he has got any grievance against the order passed by the court below on the memo. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-