T.M.Nafeesa vs K.C.Abdulla on 31 May, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34201 of 2004(V)


1. T.M.NAFEESA, D/O.T.M.MOIDU, KOLAVAYAL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.C.ABDULLA, S/O.K.C.MAMMUNHI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHAHUL HAMEED,S/O.SULAIMAN HAJI, OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :31/05/2007

 O R D E R
                         M.N. KRISHNAN, J.



                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                 W.P.(C)  No. 34201 OF 2004 V

                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =



                  Dated this the 31st May, 2007



                           J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed to set aside Ext. P4

order and remit Ext. P1 report and Ext. P2 plan to the

Advocate Commissioner directing him to submit a fresh

report and plan taking note of the objections raised by

the parties. A perusal of the records would reveal

that the plaintiff as well as the defendants moved I.A.

No. 1162/04 and I.A. No. 1286/04 for remitting the

commissioner’s plan and report. The court below found

that there are sufficient materials and so no remission

is necessary. Challenging Ext. P4 order, the writ

petition is filed. A survey plan is also submitted and

there is challenge against the proper location of the

property in accordance with the survey. This is a case

where both parties are dissatisfied with the materials

available and they want fresh and further materials for

a proper disposal of the case. So, in the fitness of

things it is just and necessary to direct the

commissioner to re-inspect the property and submit a

fresh plan and report after taking into account the

WPC No.34201 /2004 -2-

points raised by both the parties in the form of a work

memo. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as

follows:

1. The order under challenge, namely, Ext. P4 is

set aside.

2. The trial court is directed to remit the

commissioner’s report and plan to the same commissioner

and direct him to note the points required by the

plaintiff and the defendants for the said purpose.

Both parties are directed to file work memo before the

commissioner regarding the points to be looked into.

3. In case the commissioner feels that the

assistance of a surveyor is necessary the court shall

appoint a surveyor and the expenses for the same as

well as for the commissioner shall be met by the

parties in equal halves.

M.N. KRISHNAN

JUDGE

jan/