Kerala High Court
Thomas John vs Peter Mathew
Author: V.Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/22ND SRAVANA, 1936
OP(C).No. 1860 of 2014 (O)
---------------------------
(IN IA NO.72/2013 IN OA NO.210/2007 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT,
SASTHAMCOTTA)
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
THOMAS JOHN
THONDAPURATHU KOCHUPUTHANVEETTIL,
KADAPPAMURI,
MAINAGAPALLI.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN
SMT.V.M.RUSHDA
KUM.R.ANJALI
SRI.AJITH G.ANJARLEKAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. PETER MATHEW,
PRAYAS VILLAI, KADAPPAMURI,
MAINAGAPPALLI VILLAGE PIN-690579.
2. ALIYAMMA,
PRAYS VILLAI, KADAPPAMURI,
MAINAGAPPALLI VILLAGE. PIN-690579.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rvs/
OP(C).No. 1860 of 2014 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT NO.210/2010.
EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.
EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE IA 1381/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 24.09.12.
EXHIBIT P4(A). COPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY THE SURVEYOR PRODUCED ALONG
WITH THE COMMISSION REPORT.
EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE OBJECTION AND THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.
72/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION
REPORT AND THE PLAN.
EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF TEH TITLE DEED OF A SCHEDULED PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.10/2013 FILED BY
THIS PETITIONER IS OS 210/2007.
EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF/MAGISTRATE
OF SASTHAMCOTTA IN IA 72/2013 IN OS 210/2007.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
NIL.
/true copy/
P.A.TO JUDGE
rvs/
V. CHITAMBARESH, J.,
---------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No. 1860 OF 2014
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2014
JUDGMENT
I do not find any sufficient ground to quash the order refusing to set aside the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner. But the petitioner has a grievance that all the aspects requested in I.A. No. 10 of 2013 have not been reported by the Advocate Commissioner.
2. I permit the petitioner to apply for remitting the report and plan to the same Advocate Commissioner in order to make it complete. Motion if any made in that regard shall be dealt with by the court below untrammeled by the impugned order. The court below shall also consider whether the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor is required if a further report by the same Advocate Commissioner is necessary.
3. The trial of the suit in O.S. No. 210 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Sasthamcotta is deferred by two months. This is to enable the petitioner to make a motion in O.P.(C) No. 1860 OF 2014 2 the court below as indicated above.
The original petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
V. CHITAMBARESH
JUDGE
sd
// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE