Sivadasan vs Mohandas on 7 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22410 of 2009(O)


1. SIVADASAN, S/O. POOVATHUMKADAVIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MOHANDAS, S/O. POOVATHUMKADAVIL
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :07/08/2009

 O R D E R
            S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
          -----------------------------
            W.P.(C).No.22410 OF 2009
           --------------------------
      Dated this the 7th day of August 2009
     -------------------------------------


                     JUDGMENT

Writ petition is filed seeking the

following reliefs.

i) Call for records leading to Ext.P4 and

issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing

Ext.P4.

ii) Issue such other orders, writs or

direction as are deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

iii) Award the costs of this proceeding to

the petitioner.

W.P.(C).No.22410 OF 2009 Page numbers

2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S

No.287 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court,

Kodungallur. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory

injunction and the respondent is the plaintiff. In

the suit, respondent / plaintiff moved an

application for appointment of an advocate

commissioner to conduct a local inspection and

measure the suit property with the assistance of a

surveyor. Petitioner / defendant objected that

application. The learned Munsiff after considering

the merit of the application with reference to the

objections raised by the defendant allowed it by

passing Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness

of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition

invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with

this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

W.P.(C).No.22410 OF 2009 Page numbers

3. I heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made

and taking note of the facts and circumstances

presented with reference to Ext.P4 order, I find no

notice to the respondent is necessary and hence it

is dispensed with. Ext.P4 reveals that in the

written statement filed by the petitioner /

defendant, the identity of the suit property has

been disputed. When that be so, without proper

identification of the suit property no decree of

injunction can be passed. So much so, there is no

impropriety or illegality in the order passed by

the court below allowing the commission application

moved by the plaintiff. There is no merit in the

writ petition, and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
          //TRUE COPY//                  JUDGE


vdv                                    P.A TO JUDGE