IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18034 of 2007(V)
1. KURIYAN, AGED 45, S/O.GEORGE,
... Petitioner
2. VIJU, S/O.GEORGE, ALIYATTUKUDY HOUSE,
3. VALSA, W/O.GEORGE, ALIYATTUKUDY HOUSE,
Vs
1. MARIYAKUTTY, W/O.PATHROSE,
... Respondent
2. SHERLY, W/O.SAJU PETER, VALLIMALIL
3. NEEL, S/O.SAJU, VALLIMALY HOUSE,
4. NIMA, D/O.SAJU, VALLIMALY HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :12/06/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18034 of 2007
-------------------------------
Dated this the 12th June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.144/2001, on
the file of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. After the report submitted by
the Commissioner was remitted to the Commissioner and
Commissioner submitted a further report and plan, petitioners filed
I.A.No.1167/2001 for remitting the report once again, back to the
Commissioner, contending that Commissioner did not comply with the
earlier directions. The case of the petitioners is that even though as
per the work memo, Commissioner has to report the actual width of
the way upto plaint ‘A’ schedule property, what is reported under
Ext.P10 report and Ext.P11 plan is only that as requested by the
counsel for plaintiffs under the work memo, way has been shown in
the plan. Commissioner has not directly answered the objections
raised. Under Ext.P15 order, learned Munsiff did not consider this
crucial aspect. In such circumstances, Ext.P15 order is quashed.
Learned Munsiff is directed to remit the report back to the
Commissioner to file a further report, at the expense of the plaintiffs.
W.P.(C) No.18034/2007
2
The Commissioner shall verify each and every objection raised in
I.A.No.1167/2001 and file a report specifically answering the
objections, after verification.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.
