Abdul Razack vs Mustafa on 17 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2716 of 2009(W)


1. ABDUL RAZACK, S/O. KASSIM, LABBA
                      ...  Petitioner
2. KHADEEJA RAZACK,

                        Vs



1. MUSTAFA, S/O. HAMEED, AGED 56 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MISSIRI, W/O. MUSTAFA, AGED 49 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.J.MICHAEL


 Dated :17/09/2010

 O R D E R
                      HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ.
              -------------------------------
                     W.P.(C). NO. 2716 OF 2009
              -------------------------------
             DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

Defendants in O.S.No.172/04 are the writ

petitioners. Plaintiffs in the suit, who are respondents herein, filed

I.A.No.1365/08 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to

survey and identify the properties mentioned in the petition with

the assistance of a qualified Surveyor. Plaintiff prayed for survey

and identify the properties covered by five settlement deeds and to

ascertain whether there is any means of access/way if any provided

in the suit properties. Defendants in the suit seriously opposed the

prayer. The Munsiff’s Court, Thodupuzha, after hearing both sides,

allowed the petition on payment of a cost of Rs.1,000/-. In the

affidavit filed in support of the petition for appointment of a

Commissioner, it is stated that it is highly necessary to bring on

record the different means of access provided by the settler in the

different plots of land settled by him in favour of his sons and

-2-
WP(C).No.2716/2009

daughters. Identification of such plots by survey and demarcation

is necessary in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication

of the dispute involved in the case. The court below allowed the

request of the plaintiff.

2. I do not find that any sustainable grounds are

made out by the petitioners against the impugned order, Ext.P7. I

find that Ext.P7 order was passed taking into account the reasons

stated for appointment of an Advocate Commission. In the

circumstances, no interference is necessary in the order passed by

the Munsiff’s Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that in addition to the matter to be ascertained as

requested by the plaintiffs, the petitioners also wanted certain

matters to be ascertained by the Commissioner. In the said context,

the petitioners can file work memo before the Commissioner

stating the matters to be ascertained at their instance.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.

kcv.