IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 24759 of 2007(V)
1. SABU PAUL, S/O PAULOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LUKA, S/O VARGHESE,
... Respondent
2. SAVITHRI ANTHARJANAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :16/08/2007
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN , J
==========================
W.P.(C) NO. 24759 OF 2007
==========================
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2007.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the leaned
Munsiff, Thodupuzha in I.A. No. 823/2007 in O.S. No. 118/2007. The
said application was filed by the plaintiff in the suit. It was an
application requesting the court to depute the very same commissioner
who had inspected the property and had submitted the report and the
averment is to the effect that the defendants had violated the order of
status quo and it can be seen if inspection is done by the same
commissioner. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/defendants would submit before me that the earlier report of
the commissioner was not based on the actual facts and if the very
same commissioner inspects the property he would stick on to his
earlier report which will cause prejudice to the writ petitioner and
therefore in the interest of justice a new commissioner should be
appointed. A perusal of the order of the court below would show that
the court passed an order of status quo only on the basis of the
commissioner’s report and a person who was inspected the property
and reported about the position of the property on a particular day
W.P.(C) No. 24759/2007 : 2 :
certainly would be more competent to say about the changes if any
that had taken place. If the report of the commissioner at the first
instance itself is wrong or against facts, it is for the party who
challenges it to prove it. Since the court had followed the the earlier
commissioner’s report to pass order of status quo, the best thing is
only to depute the very same commissioner to note the changes if any
and that is what is precisely done by the court below. So I do not find
any illegality in the matter and therefore the writ petition lacks merits
and is dismissed. But I make it clear that, it will not in any way
deprive the present writ petitioner in challenging the correctness or
otherwise of the original report submitted by the commissioner.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
rv
W.P.(C) No. 24759/2007 : 3 :