IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8764 of 2008(R) ------------------------- I.A.NO.315/08 IN OS.395/2000 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT-IKOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KUMMATTY VEETTIL KUNHIBI, D/O AHAMMEDKOYA HAJI AGED 66 YEARS NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.P.ALIKOYA, S/O. MAMMU, "ALIZ" MANSION PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. K.P.FATHIMA W/O P.T.MAMMEDKOYA, AGED 36 YEARS THEKKOTH NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL ANTHRU, S/O. KINHAMMADKUTTY NARARLAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 8764 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode, in IA 315/08 in OS 395/00. It is an application filed by the petitioner to remit the report and plan by the Advocate Commissioner and to get a further report. The court below on consideration of the entire materials found that the value as on the date of the suit and the present market value are reported by the Advocate Commissioner. The category of land has also been reported by the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore the same is sufficient enough for determining the court fee. This court in an earlier round of litigation with respect to very same subject matter in WP(C) No.8984/07 directed the Munsiff to issue a Commission to find out the category of land and whether it comes under Sections 7 (2), 7(3), 7(3)(A)and also to find out the market value of the property 2. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a building in the property, which is tenanted, and the market value of the property is to be determined as on the date of the suit WPC NO 8764/08 2 and therefore, commissioner’s plan and report has to be remitted. All these matters are facts, which can be proved by the party by adducing evidence and a commission report not be remitted for the same. The court below has held that sufficient materials are there for determining the question of court fee and therefore no remittance is necessary. It is also to be held that each and every interlocutory application need not come to the High Court in the form of a writ petition especially in the light of amendment to the Civil Procedure Code which takes away the revisional jurisdiction with respect to interlocutory orders which does not conclude in a finality of the litigation. As a substitute, one cannot resort to Article 227 of the Constitution of India and on that count also the writ petition is not liable to be entertained. Therefore this writ petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 8764/08 3 WPC NO 8764/08 4 WPC NO 8764/08 5