High Court Kerala High Court

Paramu Haridasan vs Boban on 17 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Paramu Haridasan vs Boban on 17 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17857 of 2008(A)


1. PARAMU HARIDASAN, JAINA VILASAM @ JAINA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BOBAN, KULANGARASSERI VEETTIL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. HARI KUMAR, KULANGARASSERI VEETIL,

3. UMAYAMMA, KULANGARASSERI VEETIL,

4. SREEMATHI, KULANGARASSERI VEETIL,

5. DEVAKUMARI, KULANGARASSERI VEETIL,

6. SURENDRAN, KULANGARASSERI VEETIL,

7. NIBIN, KULANGARASSERI VEETIL,

8. V.V.MINERALS, KEERAKURANTSATHU

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :17/07/2008

 O R D E R
                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                    ...........................................
                  WP(C).No. 17857                 OF 2008
                    ............................................
         DATED THIS THE             17th       DAY OF JULY, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents, the defendants

in O.S.22 of 2003 on the file of Munsiff Court, Harippad. This

petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,

challenging Ext.P8 order whereunder I.A.436 of 2008, an

application filed by petitioner for appointment of an experienced

Surveyor and Commissioner to identify the plaint schedule

property was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

The argument of the learned counsel is that petitioner was

granted a patta and a plan was appended, which shows the

identity of the property and in such circumstances, learned

Munsiff should have appointed an experienced Commissioner to

identify the property and prepare a plan.

3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through

Ext.P8 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity,

warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this court

under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The Commissioner,

along with the assistance of Surveyor, has already submitted a

WP(C) 17857/2008 2

report. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. Petitioner is

entitled to adduce evidence in support of his case with regard to

the identification. He is also entitled to challenge Ext.P8 order

along with final judgment, if it goes against him.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-