Kakkanan Thamban vs Geetha Subrahmanian on 12 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7876 of 2009(O)


1. KAKKANAN THAMBAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GEETHA SUBRAHMANIAN, AGED 43 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P. KUMARAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :12/03/2009

 O R D E R
                         K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.7876 of 2009
                 ---------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009



                             JUDGMENT

The first defendant in O.S.No.274 of 2007 on the file of

the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg has filed this Writ Petition

challenging Ext.P4 order dated 17th November 2008 by which

the court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner

as I.A.No.3196 of 2008 to remit Commissioner’s report and plan.

The court below considered the application along with

I.A.No.3195 of 2008 filed by the second defendant for the same

purpose. Both the applications were dismissed by the court

below. The court below held that the Commissioner has done

the work properly and fixed the identity of the property with

reference to the survey measurements and title deeds. The

Commissioner was assisted in the work by the Taluk Surveyor.

The court below noticed that the objections raised against the

Commissioner’s report and plan are objections of the type which

are usually being made when the report goes against a particular

party. The court below after considering all the objections in

WPC No.7876/2009 2

detail held that there is no necessity to remit the Commissioner’s

report. I do not think that there is any ground for interference

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with

the order passed by the court below. Dismissal of the application

for remitting the Commissioner’s report does not preclude the

petitioner from establishing that the Commissioner’s report is

not liable to be accepted or that further probe is necessary in the

matter. The petitioner can do so at the time of trial as held in

Kanaran Nair vs. Madhavan Nair (1996(1) KLT 162).

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed

with the above observations.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl