IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31043 of 2009(O)
1. PARAVATTANI SAMOOHA MADOM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. WILSON, S/O.KIZHAKKESSERY NARAYANAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :02/11/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.31043 OF 2009 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following
reliefs:
i. to call for the records relating to
Ext.P6 and quash the same by a writ of
certiorari or such other writ, order or
direction as this Honourable Court may
deem fit, directing the court below to
dispose of Ext.P6 afresh.
ii. to grant an interim order staying the
trial of O.S.No.2291/2003 in the Court
of the Munsiff, Irinjalakkuda, pending
disposal of the writ petition.
2. Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.2291 of 2003
on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. Suit
is one for fixation of boundary and the respondent, the
plaintiff. Challenge raised in the writ petition is against
WPC.31043/09 2
Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the court below declining the
request made by the petitioner/2nd defendant to remit a
commission report and plan and also production of a sketch by
a third party stated to be the prior janmi of the property, to
substantiate the objections raised to the report.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having
regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts
and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the
respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with.
From the submissions made, it is found that the present
petitioner/2nd defendant in his written statement has raised a
counter claim, which, according to the counsel, was for the
reliefs of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction.
When that be the case, needless to point out that the
petitioner should have taken appropriate steps at the
appropriate time for production of essential materials
necessary to ascertain the suit property as well as his
property. Whatever that be, it is noticed that the present
report and plan prepared by the Commissioner was
WPC.31043/09 3
subsequent to remission of the previous report and plan
pursuant to some directions issued by this Court in a previous
writ petition. The report and plan through a Commissioner
are called for to enable and assist the court in adjudicating the
disputes involved. In otherwords, for a fair disposal of the
case emerging for consideration. A party objecting such
report and plan shall have an opportunity to challenge its
merit at the trial. It is open to the petitioner to raise his
challenge to the report and plan in the trial of the suit.
Reserving his right to do so, the writ petition is closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp