Loading...

K.T.Prasad vs K.R.T.A.Trust on 21 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.T.Prasad vs K.R.T.A.Trust on 21 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(C).No. 1248 of 2010(O)


1. K.T.PRASAD, S/O.GOPALAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.R.T.A.TRUST, REP.BY MANAGING TRUSTEE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :21/12/2010

 O R D E R
                      THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                 -----------------------------------------
                  O.P(Civil). NO. 1248 OF 2010
                 ----------------------------------------
         Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010.

                              JUDGMENT

Defendant No.1 in O.S.No. 598 of 2007 of court of learned

Prl. Munsiff-II, Kozhikode is the petitioner in this proceeding,

challenging Ext.P5 order refusing to set aside the report

submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Respondent sued

petitioner for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespass

into suit property creating documents. Advocate

Commissioner identified the suit property with the assistance of

a surveyor submitted report and plan. Petitioner filed I.A No.2529

of 2010 to set aside that report contending that the report is

inadequate and that matters referred to in the work memo

submitted by petitioner has not been ascertained. Learned

Munsiff observed that report and plan were submitted in court on

12.11.2009, it was posted for objection on 21.01.2010, petitioner

did not prefer any objection and in spite of posting the case for

steps on 06.02.2010, petitioner did not take any steps. Petitioner

filed I.A No. 2529 of 2010 to set aside report and plan only on

19.06.2010 when the case was to be taken up for trial in the list

on 21.6.2010. Learned Munsiff observed that property has been

O.P(Civil). NO. 1248 OF 2010 2

identified by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of

the surveyor and that setting aside the report is not required.

Learned counsel contends that on the facts of the case report

ought to have been set aside.

I have referred to the circumstances under which petitioner

filed I.A.2529 of 2010. It is just before the case was to be taken

up for trial in the list that petitioner chose to file I.A 2529 of 2010.

Learned Munsiff has observed that petitioner can seek remittance

of the report at the time of trial if it is made out that the report is

inadequate or incorrect. Also since that remedy is available to

the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere. Petition is

dismissed.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE

mns

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information