IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1102 of 2010(O) ------------------------- IA NOS.820/2010 & 818/2010 IN OS.88/2008 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYOLI .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- PUTHIYEDUTH SREE PARADEVATHA TEMPLE TRUST COMMITTEE, REP. BY SECRETARY CUM TREASURER, VIJAYAN NAIR K., MEPPAYYUR AMSOM, KEEZHPAYYUR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PADMNABHAN NAIR, SREEPADMAM HOUSE, MEPPAYYUR AMSOM, KEEZHPAYYUR DESOM, MEPPAYYUR P.O.-673524, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SREEDHARAN NAIR, KALARIYULLA PARAMBIL, MEPPAYYUR AMSOM, KEEZHPAYYUR DESOM, MEPPAYYUR P.O.-673524, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. MADEKKANDI SAROJINI AMMA, NANMANDA AMSOM DESOM, NANMANDA P.O., - 673613, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. IDAVANA NARAYANI AMMA, MEPPAYYUR AMSOM, KEEZHPAYYUR DESOM, MEPPAYYUR P.O.-673524, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. PUTHIYEDATH KUNHIKANNAN, -DO- -DO- 6. KOMAMBATH MADHAVAN NAIR, -DO- -DO- 7. KOLLIYIL RAGHAVAN, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM DESOM, CHERUVANNUR P.O.-673645, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. POTTANKANDI SIVANANDAN, MEPPAYYUR AMSOM, KEEZHPAYYUR DESOM, MEPPAYYUR P.O.-673524, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1102 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Payyoli is the petitioner before me. He sued respondents for a decree for fixation of boundary and on his request, Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a Surveyor inspected the property and submitted report and plan – Exts.P6 and P6(a) on 02.09.2010. Petitioner was given three opportunities to file his objection to the report and plan if any but, nothing happened and after the case was posted for trial in the list petitioner filed Ext.P7, application for remission of the report and yet another application to remove the case from the list. Those applications were dismissed by Exts.P8 and P9, orders. Later petitioner;s documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Now the case is posted for defence evidence on 13.12.2010. Exts.P8 and P9, orders are under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel contends that Advocate Commissioner has not identified the property and Ext.P5, work memo also has not taken into account. The only reason for dismissal of Ext.P7, application is delay. Alternatively it is contended that petitioner may be given opportunity to file application to re-open the case and examine the Advocate Commissioner. 2. So far as the challenge to Exts.P8 and P9, orders is OP(C) No.1102/2010 2 concerned, I do not think it necessary to consider it at this belated stage when the trial has already commenced and the case is posted for defence evidence. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to challenge correctness of Ext.P8, order (dismissing the application to remit the report and plan) and the inadequacy in the report if any in case any appeal is preferred against judgment and decree of the trial court. 3. So far as request for re-opening the case is concerned, I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to make such a request in the court below if examination of the Advocate Commissioner is necessary and if any such request is made learned Munsiff-Magistrate shall consider that request in the facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders as circumstances warranted. Petition is disposed of. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks