Sree Priya vs Indranad on 8 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4898 of 2009(G)


1. SREE PRIYA, D/O. CHANDRAKALA,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ASWATHY, D/O. CHANDRAKALA, -DO-

                        Vs



1. INDRANAD, S/O. VENKIDESWARA
                       ...       Respondent

2. BALACHANDRA  BHAT,

3. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND VIJAYAKUMARI,

4. URMILA DEVI, D/O. VENKIDESWARA VADYAR,

5. RETHNA BHAI, W/O. INDRA NAD, -DO-

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.AZAD BABU

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.NARAYANAN

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

 Dated :08/09/2009

 O R D E R
                  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                  -----------------------------------
                  W.P.(C).No.4898 of 2009 - G
                   ---------------------------------
            Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

Writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.269 of 2006

on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Suit is one

for declaration of title and consequential injunction, and the

respondents are the defendants. When the suit came up in the

list for trial, petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application for

appointment of an advocate commissioner to identify the suit

property. The defendants in the suit resisted that application

submitting that they have no dispute over the identity of the suit

property. Learned Munsiff after considering the application for

appointment of advocate commissioner with reference to the

objections found the application highly belated and dismissed it

holding it lacked bona fides. Another application moved by the

plaintiff to remove the case from the special list was also

dismissed. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order. Petitioners moved

an application for review of that order. That was also dismissed

vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of those orders are

challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory

W.P.(C).No.4898 of 2009 – G

2

jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. From the submissions made and also perusing the

materials produced with the writ petition, I find that in a previous

suit a plan has been prepared identifying the suit property as

well. Plaintiffs are not parties to that suit is the submission of the

learned counsel to contend that a fresh plan identifying the suit

claim is essential. Having regard to the admitted fact that the

defendants have no dispute or challenge to the identity of the

suit property and further that the application for appointment of a

commission was moved only after the case was included in the

special list for trial, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order

passed by the learned Munsiff disallowing the application.

Writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.

bkn/-