IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 709 of 2010(O)
1. SUDEVAN, S/O.PONNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SELVARAJAN,
... Respondent
2. VIJAYAKUMAR,
3. SASIKUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :15/11/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No.709 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chittur is the
petitioner before me seeking a direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose of
Ext.P6, application to appoint another Advocate Commissioner in place of the
Advocate Commissioner who has submitted Ext.P7, report. The suit was filed in
the year 2006 for recovery of possession on title claimed by petitioner, and
other reliefs. Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the year 2006 and he
made certain visits to the property. He submitted Ext.P3(a), interim report dated
27.09.2007 and Ext.P3(b), interim report on 07.08.2007. In Ext.P3(b), interim
report he stated that since the properties of parties are covered by river,
Surveyor was not able to measure the property and assistance of
Superintendent of Survey is required. He requested the court to issue necessary
directions in the matter. While so petitioner filed Ext.P5, application to direct
respondents to maintain status quo and Ext.P6, application on 04.10.2010 to
appoint another Advocate Commissioner levelling certain allegations against the
Advocate Commissioner pointing out that he has not taken effective steps to
measure and identify the property. In answer to Ext.P6, application Advocate
Commissioner submitted Ext.P7, report explaining what exactly happened
(according to him). It is stated before me that Ext.P7 is not correct. But I am not
however going into its correctness. If necessary that is a matter which the trial
OP(C) No.709/2010
2
court has to decide. Learned counsel states that without disposing of Ext.P6,
application learned Munsiff is proceeding to try the case in the list. If Ext.P6,
application is still pending necessarily learned Munsiff has to dispose of the
same. Hence it is directed that learned Munsiff shall dispose of Ext.P6,
application after hearing both sides (if it is not already disposed of) before the
case is taken up for trial in the list. While considering Ext.P6, application learned
Munsiff may also consider whether a proper plan is required for adjudication of
the dispute involved in the case notwithstanding the allegations and counter
allegations in Exts.P6 and P7.
Petition is disposed of as above.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks