Disposing an original petition seeking writ jurisdiction, the court held the impugned order appointing an Advocate Commissioner is merely procedural and not assailable under Article 227 of the Constitution, affirming it subject to a clarification allowing parties to file work memos.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/20TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
OP(C).No. 4047 of 2012 ()
OS.113/2011 of MUNI-MAGI COURT, DEVICOLAM
PETITIONER(S):
ANNAMMA MOSHA, AGED 86 YEARS W/O.LATE MOSHA RESIDING IN MUNDACKAL HOUSE 200 ACRE KARA MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE DEVIKULAM TALUK
BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. SHAILAJA, AGED 42 YEARS
D/O.NARAYANAN RESIDING IN KOTTACKAKATHU HOUSE 200 ACRE KARA MANNAAMKANDOM VILLAGE DEVIKULAM TALUK IDUKKI 685 561
2. SHIBU
3. SAMUEL, AGED 45 YEARS
4. THANKACHAN, AGED 48 YEARS PAREKKUDIYIL HOUSE 200 ACRE KARA OF MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE IDUKKI 685561
5. BABY, AGED 45 YEARS
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
jm
OP(C).No. 4047 of 2012 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1 | THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS O.S NO 113/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT DEVIKULAM. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT DEVIKULAM AS I.A NO 374 OF 2011 IN O.S 113/2011. |
| EXT.P3 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 28857/2011 PASSED BY THIS COURT. |
| EXT.P4 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS I.A NO 46/2012 IN O.S NO 113/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P5 | A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS I.A 1206/2012 IN O.S NO 113/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT DEVIKULAM. |
| EXT.P6 | THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT DEVIKULAM IN O.S 113/2011 . |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
\ TRUE COPY \
PA TO JUDGE
jm
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
O.P.(C) No. 4047 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 11th day of December, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The court below has as early as on 6-3-2012 allowed I.A No.46/2012 and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct local inspection with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor. The sale was at the instance of the defendant notwithstanding the fact that there were interim reports earlier by another Advocate Commissioner at the preliminary stage of litigation.
O.P.(C) No. 4047 of 2012
2
that both parties are at liberty to file a work memo to the Advocate Commissioner indicating the aspects to be reported by him at the time of local inspection.
The impugned order is affirmed subject to the above clarification. The Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of.
V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE
smm
O.P.(C) No. 4047 of 2012 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order appointing an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection is assailable under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the appointment of a private surveyor to assist the Taluk Surveyor is warranted given the purpose of local inspection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶37
ANNAMMA MOSHA
SHAILAJA
SHIBU
SAMUEL
THANKACHAN
BABY
V.CHITAMBARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
