High Court Kerala High Court

Sherly Thomas vs Stanly P.Thomas on 30 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sherly Thomas vs Stanly P.Thomas on 30 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32732 of 2007(V)


1. SHERLY THOMAS, PANANATTATHU HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STANLY P.THOMAS, SOUMYA BHAVAN HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ELIZABETH STANLY, W/O.STANLY P.THOMAS,

3. JOSEPH ANTONY, CHERUVIL HOUSE,

4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANILAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.KKM.SHERIF

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :30/06/2008

 O R D E R
                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

                       -------------------------------

                        W.P.(C) No.32732 of 2007

                       -------------------------------

                      Dated this the 30th June, 2008.

                             J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2006, on the

file of the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally. The suit is one for injunction.

Respondents are the defendants. Petitioner applied for appointment of

a commission. A commissioner was appointed. Commissioner with the

assistance of the surveyor prepared a plan and submitted Ext.P2

report. Petitioner filed I.A.No.814 of 2007, an application to set aside

the report, contending that property was not properly identified. In

that application, surveyor was examined as PW.1. Learned Munsiff,

on the materials placed, dismissed the petition, holding that at this

stage, the report cannot be set aside. It is challenged in this petition

filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

respondents were heard.

3. On hearing the counsel appearing for both sides and

on going through Ext.P5 order, and Ext.P4 copy of the deposition of

W.P.(C) No.32732 of 2007

2

the surveyor, it is clear that there are omissions in the report, which

could be corrected, if the report is remitted back to the Commissioner.

Learned Munsiff should have remitted the report back to the

Commissioner to file a further report, in the light of the objections

raised.

The writ petition is allowed. Learned Munsiff is directed

to remit the report and plan filed by the Commissioner, to the

Commissioner to file a further report, in the light of the objections

raised by the petitioner in I.A.No.814/2007. Expense of the

Commissioner shall be met by the petitioner.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

nj.