IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28146 of 2007(A)
1. A.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O ARAMUGHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THUVAKKAT PADMINI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :24/09/2007
O R D E R
M.N.Krishnan, J.
========================
W.P(C).No.28146 of 2007
========================
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2007.
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed against an order passed by the
Appellate Judge in rejecting a prayer under Order 18 Rule 18 of
C.P.C. It is true that Order 18 Rule 18 of C.P.C. enables a court
to inspect the property and if necessary to prepare a
memorandum and shall keep it as a part of the records of the
suit. Now the matter is pending in appeal.
2. The Commissioner inspected the property. A perusal of
Ext.P2 application itself would reveal that Exts.C1, C2, C3 and
other documents are available before the court. Regarding the
correctness of these documents, I do not propose to make any
observations. Needless to say, to find out whether the reports
are right or wrong, I do not find that the court should venture to
make a local inspection and get into controversy in a suit of this
nature. When the Commissioner’s reports are filed there are
methods known to law whereby the correctness or otherwise of
WP(C) 28146/07 -: 2 :-
the reports can be challenged before the court and the parties
can adduce evidence to satisfy the conscience of the court
regarding the correct position.
3. Therefore, I find that the court below was justified in
rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 18 of C.P.C. I
make it clear that the Appellate Court can proceed with the
appeal untrammelled by the fact that it has rejected the
application filed under Order 18 Rule 18 of C.P.C. It is for that
court to decide the matter in accordance with law.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
M.N.Krishnan,
Judge.
ess 24/9