IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15628 of 2009(O)
1. NEENA MARY PHILIP, W/O.BABU JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
2. BABU JOSEPH, S/O.P.K.JOSEPH,
3. K.U.KUNJUKUNJU, S/O.ULAHANNAN,
Vs
1. JOSEPH PAUL, S/O.PAUL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :05/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.15628 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 5th June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following reliefs:
1. To issue a writ of prohibition setting aside Ext.P6 order dated
28.2.2009 of the Sub Court, Kottayam dated in I.A.No.5060 of 2008
in O.S.No.288 of 2007 and dismiss the I.A.
2. Grant such other reliefs that this Hon’ble court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances.
Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.288/07 pending on the file of
the Sub Court, Kottayam. Suit was one for injunction. An application
moved by the respondent/plaintiff for appointment of a commission to
conduct a local inspection and to determine the various points raised
by the plaintiff, after hearing both sides, was allowed by the learned
Sub Judge under Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of that order
is challenged in the Writ Petition.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Previously
this court had set aside Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Sub Judge
on the commission application which was ordered without notice to
the defendants, submits the learned counsel. Subsequently, Ext.P6
W.P.C.No.15628/09 – 2 –
order is passed without considering the objections raised by them, is
the grievance canvassed. Defendants have serious disputes as
regards the documents produced by the plaintiff basing on which the
relief of injunction is claimed, submits the counsel. Having regard to
the submissions made and taking note of the facts and the
circumstances involved, I find, the objections canvassed against
appointment of a commission and also for impeaching Ext.P6 order
passed by the court below is of no merit. Petitioners/defendants will
get sufficient opportunity to substantiate their contentions in the trial
of the suit. I do not find anything improper in the discretion exercised
by the learned Sub Judge in allowing the application moved by the
plaintiff in the matter of appointment of a commission which, no
doubt, is necessary for a proper adjudication of the suit on its merits.
The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE