Kerala High Court
Muraleedharan vs Yasodha on 10 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
CRP NO. 266 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 321/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR,
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN I.A/DEFENDANT IN O.S.:
MURALEEDHARAN
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. PONNU (LATE), VANIYAMKULAMBU HOUSE,
VILAYODI, VANDITHAVALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,
PIN CODE-678 534
BY ADV THANUJA ROSHAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN I.A/PLAINTIFF IN O.S.:
YASODHA, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O. CHELLAN (LATE), VADATHODE,
CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK-678 101
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP NO. 266 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2021
The revision petitioner is the defendant in
O.S.No.321/2018 on the files of the Munsiff's Court,
Chittur. The grievance highlighted in the Original
Petition is against an order by which the trial court
allowed an application filed by the plaintiff, seeking
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to
conduct local inspection, and identify the plaint
scheduled property with the aid of a surveyor.
According to the petitioner, the application is made
with the deliberate intention of misleading the court,
in as much as the property now sought to be
identified is not in existence. Moreover, the plaintiff
had sold her land, which fact was conveniently
suppressed.
2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that the entire plaint scheduled property
has been sold by the plaintiff and therefore no
CRP NO. 266 OF 2021
purpose will be achieved by the Commissioner
inspecting the property, other than to protract the
proceedings.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel and
having perused the impugned order, I find no reason
to interfere, since the objections now raised by the
revision petitioner can very well be raised after the
Advocate Commissioner submits the report and plan.
As is the settled position, an Advocate
Commissioner's report is only a piece of evidence
and the case is not decided based on such evidence
alone. Moreover, if the petitioner has objection
against the Commission Report, it is always open for
him to require the court to either remit or set aside
the report. The defects, if any in the report can also
be brought to light by examining the Advocate
Commissioner and Surveyor. The Court cannot
assume that a wrong report will be filed by the
Advocate Commissioner.
In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed,
leaving open the revision petitioner's liberty to take
CRP NO. 266 OF 2021
appropriate remedial measures, if he is dissatisfied
with the Commission Report and plan.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
NB/10-9
CRP NO. 266 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF CRP 266/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.321/2018 OF
THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1002/2019 IN
O.S.NO.321/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
ANNEXURE A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK MEMO DATED 16.03.2021
FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.321/2018 OF
THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: NIL
True Copy
P.A to Judge
