Kerala High Court
Seethalekshmi vs Lekshmi on 23 February, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2014/8TH SRAVANA, 1936
OP(C).No. 1722 of 2014 (O)
--------------------------------------
O.S. NO. 320/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA
...................................................
PETITIONERS:
--------------------------
1. SEETHALEKSHMI
W/O. KUTTAPAN, AGED 58
THOTTATHIPARAMBIL, THOTTAKKATTU KARA
ALUVAWEST VILLAGE
2. KUTTAPAN, AGED 62
THOTTATHIPARAMBIL,
THOTTAKKATTU KARA
ALUVAWEST VILLAGE
BY ADVS.SRI.REJI GEORGE
SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA)
SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY
SRI.BINOY DAVIS
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. LEKSHMI
W/O. LATE GOPALAN
MADAVANA VEETTIL
THOTTAKKATTU KARA,
ALUVAWEST VILLAGE, 683 101
2. CHITHRA, D/O. LATE GOPALAN,
MADAVANA VEETTIL
THOTTAKKATTU KARA,
ALUVAWEST VILLAGE, 683 101
3. SHAJU, AGED 36
S/O. LATE GOPALAN,
MADAVANA VEETTIL
THOTTAKKATTU KARA,
ALUVAWEST VILLAGE, 683 101
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DCS
OP(C).No. 1722 of 2014 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1 : COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND PLAN DATED 23.02.2008
P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.06.2009 IN W.P.C NO. 8322/2009
P3 : COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 23.12.2011 IN O.S.NO. 320/2009 OF
MUNSIFF'S COURT ALUVA
P4 : COPY OF THE I.A. 201/2013 DATED 07.02.2013 IN O.S. NO. 320/2009 OF
MUNSIFF'S COURT ALUVA
P5 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28.05.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
I.A. NO. 201/2013 IN O.S. NO. 320/2009 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT ALUVA
P6 : COPY OF THEORDER DATED 30.06.2014 PASSED IN I.A. NO. 201/2013 IN O.S.
NO. 320/2009 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT ALUVA
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL
---------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
DCS
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
-------------------------------
O.P.(C) No. 1722 of 2014
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2014
JUDGMENT
It is trite law that the report of the Advocate Commissioner is evidence only in the suit in which it is filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ofcourse the report can be marked in evidence in another suit by examining the same Advocate Commissioner. The mere fact that there exists a report of the Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No. 175/2005 does not disable the Court below in appointing an Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No. 320/2009. This is notwithstanding the fact that the counter claim in O.S. No. 320/2009 has been decreed even though the plaint claim therein stands resurrected.
2. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The order is merely procedural and does not affect the right of the petitioners at present. The implications of the decree in O.S. No. 175/2005 or the decree in counter claim in O.S. No. 320/2009 are matters to be considered by the Court below.
The Original Petition fails and is dismissed.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS