Standly vs Pushpalatha
2021 Latest Caselaw 4346 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                        OP(C).No.1554 OF 2020

     AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2020 IN OS 102/2013 OF SUB
                        COURT,NEYYATTINKARA

                             ----------


PETITIONERS:

      1        STANDLY
               AGED 52 YEARS
               S/O. THANKARAJ, RAHUL BHAVAN, MEKKE MAVADITHALA,
               KOCHUTTUKONAM, MARIYAPURAM, CHENKAL DESOM, CHENKAL
               VILLAGE

      2        LIJI
               AGED 44 YEARS
               W/O. STANDLY, RAHUL BHAVAN, MEKKE MAVADITHALA,
               KOCHUTTUKONAM, MARIYAPURAM, CHENKAL DESOM, CHENKAL
               VILLAGE

               BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        PUSHPALATHA
               AGED 49 YEARS
               W/O. LATE THOMAS, GRACE BHAVAN,
               KARIKKINVILA, CHENKAL DESOM,
               CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695132.

      2        SAMUEL THOMAS
               AGED 17 YEARS
               S/O. LATE THOMAS, GRACE BHAVAN, KARIKKINVILA, CHENKAL
               DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695132.
               (MINOR) (REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT)
 OP(C).No.1554 OF 2020

        3        SUJAN
                 AGED 35 YEARS
                 S/O. SREEDHARAN, THAZHEKAMUKINKUZHI VEEDU,
                 KOCHOTTUKONAM, MARIYAPURAM P O, CHENKAL VILLAGE,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695122.

                 R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                    SATHISH NINAN, J.
          ==================
               O. P. (C) No.1554 of 2020
          ==================
         Dated this the 5th day of February, 2021

                            JUDGMENT

The suit is for money, based on a construction

contract. The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by the order remitting the Commissioner's Report.

2. The court, as per the impugned order, found

that the report as is presently available is

insufficient to adjudicate the real dispute between

the parties. The mere fact that the plaintiff did

not seek for remission of the report does not mean

that the report cannot be remitted when the court

finds that further details are necessary. The

defendant-petitioner contends that, the remission

is for ascertaining facts beyond the scope of the

agreement between the parties which is the subject

matter of the suit.

3. The report already available on record shall

be maintained and the commissioner be directed to

file further report. The relevancy and

acceptability of the reports can be considered by O. P. (C) No.1554 of 2020

the court during the course of trial. The order

impugned warrants no interference.

With the above observations, the original

petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1554 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 102/2013 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OS NO.102/2013.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN OS NO.102/2013.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT TO COUNTER CLAIM IN OS NO.102/2013 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS NO.102/2013.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN OS NO. 102/2013.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2020 IN OS NO.102/2013.

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