IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 7911 of 2008(P) ------------------------- O.S.NO. 337/2000 OF PRL.M.C.,KANNUR. .................... PETITIONER: ------------ VACHAPPURATH NAFEESA, W.O LATE MOIDEENKUTTY,AGED 65 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION,RESIDING AT ILLIPPURAM, PAPPINISSERI AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PAPPINISSERY,KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.M.K.SUMOD SRI.KAUSER EDAPAGATH SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.V.G.SALEESH RESPONDENT: ------------- KAZHUTHOLAN NARAYANAN, S/O KORAN,AGED 44 YEARS, DRIVER,RESIDING AT ILLIPURAM, PAPPINISSERI AMSOM DESOM,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.KRISHNAN(KANNUR) - R1 SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR - R1 SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 7911/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT IN O.S.NO.337/00 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE MUNSIFF OF KANNUR. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 26/06/2003. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION DATED 16/08/2007. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DATED 13/12/2007. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION PETITION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 21/01/2008. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 28/01/2008. EXHIBIT P8 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.342/2008 IN O.S.NO.337/2000 DATED 14/02/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. MUNSIFF, KANNUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 7911 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P8 order passed by learned Munsiff in I.A.342 of 2008 in O.S.337 of 2000 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kannur. I.A.342 of 2008 was filed to remit the report to Commissioner. It was dismissed under Ext.P8. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent were heard. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that Commissioner has not identified the property with reference to the title deed of the petitioner and without identifying the property, a decree for recovery of possession cannot ultimately be granted and in such circumstances, learned Munsiff should have remitted the report to Commissioner as sought for. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent opposed the prayer, contending that there is no necessity to remit the report. 4. In paragraph 4 of Ext.P4 report, Commissioner specifically stated that the property shown in the title deed of petitioner viz, document No.1637 of 1983 cannot be identified WP(C) 7911/2008 2 with reference to the boundaries shown therein. Commissioner has shown plot LMIJKL as the plot covered by the document, as shown by petitioner. The argument of learned counsel is that as that fact is disputed, Commissioner should have found out the exact property. When the document does not give any other indication, except the name of the persons in possession of the boundary properties and the property cannot be identified on that basis. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P8 order passed by the learned Munsiff. Petitioner is entitled to give evidence in support of his objections and is also entitled to challenge the order along with the final judgment in the suit if it is found against him. Writ Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-