Disposed

Chandhini v. Sainaba

Kerala HC24 Jan 2014OP(C)/4440/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to set aside an order dismissing an application to set aside the Advocate Commissioner's report. The High Court allowed the petitioner to examine the commissioner at trial and permitted the trial court to disregard the order if the report was unacceptable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to examine the Advocate Commissioner at the time of trial; trial court to decide on report's acceptability.

Chandhini Vs Sainaba — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/4TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

OP(C).No. 4440 of 2013 (O)

¶6

--------------------------I.A.No.1910/2013 IN O.S.No.776/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :-

¶8

CHANDHINI, MADATHIPARAMBIL NARAYANAN, MOONUPEEDIKA DESOM PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

¶10

SRI.S.SUJIN SRI.M.PREMKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :-

¶12

1. SAINABA, W/O. VATTAPARAMBIL KUNJUMUHAMMED, MOONUPEEDIKA DESOM, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 686.

¶13

2. ABDUL SALAM, S/O. KOTHAMANGALATH KUNJUMUHAMMED MOONUPEEDIKA DESOM, PERINJANAM VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 686.

¶14

3. KORANKUNJI, S/O. KANDAN KORAN, NELLAKATH, MOONUPEEDIKA DESOM, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 686.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-012014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

jvt

¶18

OP(C).No. 4440 of 2013 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-

¶21

P1 : COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT NO.776 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR.

¶22

P2 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN OS NO.776/2010.

¶23

P3 : COPY OF THE IA NO.1261/2011 IN OS NO.776/2010.

¶24

P4 : COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION ALONG WITH ROUGH SKETCH.

¶25

P5 : COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE COMMISSION BY THE HELP OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR ALONG WITH A FINAL REPORT.

¶26

P6 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P7 : COPY OF THE IA NO.1910/2013 IN OS NO.776/2010.

¶28

P8 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN IA NO.1910/2013 IN OS NO.776/2010.

¶29

P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.31.10.2013 IN IA NO.1910/2013 IN OS NO.776/2010.

¶30

P10 : COPY OF MAP PREPARED BY THE RETIRED VILLAGE REVENUE INSPECTOR.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶34

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶35

O.P.(C). No.4440 of 2013

¶36

Dated this the 24^th day of January 2014

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The application to set aside the commissioner's report was dismissed by the trial court by Ext.P9 order. That is challenged in this petition.

¶39

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the dismissal of the petition, it will not be possible for the petitioner to examine the commissioner and to adduce evidence to show that the report and plan are unacceptable. The acceptability or otherwise of the commissioner's report are to be gone into by the court at the time of trial. Hence, this OP(C) is disposed of in the following lines :-

¶40

The trial court will allow the petition to examine the Advocate Commissioner at the time of trial. If at the time of trial, the learned Munsiff finds that the report and plan are unacceptable or that something more has to be

¶41

O.P.(C). No.4440 of 2013

¶42

-: 2 :-

¶43

obtained for the proper adjudication of the dispute involved, the trial court will pass appropriate orders at that stage. The learned Munsiff will dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any of the observation made in Ext.P9 order.

¶44

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶45

Jvt

¶46

/true copy/

¶47

P.S. To Judge

Chandhini v. Sainaba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandhini v. Sainaba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susy Kishor Vs Paulson, S/O.Nirappel Kuruvila

Natarajan Achari Vs Saraswathy and Others

V.K.Haneefa Vs Ibp Company Ltd.

A.T.Mammed Koya Vs a.T.Ummar Koya

Haridas Vs Self Growth Nidhi Ltd.

P.Madhusoodana Menon Vs C.R.Unnikrishnan