IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18247 of 2003(V)
1. G.SREEKRISHNA BHAT, S/O.SUBARAYA BHAT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. G.DUGGAMMA, W/O. LATE ACHUTHA BHAT.
... Respondent
2. G.SUBRAHMAYA BHAT,
3. G.MADHAVA BHAT,
For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
For Respondent :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :02/07/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 18247 OF 2003
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
The fervent and persuasive submissions of Sri.E.R.Venkiteswaran
notwithstanding, I am unable to agree with him when he submits that
Ext.P10 impugned order warrants correction by this court and that too
under the visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
which is to be exercised only under exceptional circumstances. In my
opinion the interest of the petitioners also is taken care of by the learned
Munsiff who has observed that it is open to the petitioner to adduce
evidence so that he will be able to substantiate those points on which
the commission report is apparently not adequate. The challenge
against Ext.P10 will fail. However, the learned Munsiff is directed to
permit the petitioner when the suit goes for trial to adduce whatever
evidence in substantiation of the objections he has raised to the
commissioner’s report and after the trial is over the court shall take a
decision initially on the question whether there is inadequacy in the
commissioner’s report. Confirmation of the impugned order by this
Court will not stand in the way of the Munsiff in taking a decision, if he
is convinced that the petitioner’s complaint that the commissioner’s
report is inadequate has some substance. Final judgment in the suit will
WPC No.18247 of 2003
2
be delivered by the learned Munsiff only after an order is passed
regarding the adequacy of the commissioner’s report.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No.18247 of 2003
3