Kerala High Court
OP(C)/1332/2010 of GOVINDANKUTTY MENON Vs PRABHAKARAN NAIR on 31 December 2010
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 1332 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.151/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932
OP(C).No. 1332 of 2010(O)
-------------------------
OS.151/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA
....................
PETITIONER
------------------------------
GOVINDANKUTTY MENON, AGED 59,
S/O VAZHAPPILLY LAKSHMI AMMA,
CHEMBUCHIRA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------
1. PRABHAKRAN NAIR,
S/O PERUMBILL MADHAVI AMMA,
CHEMBUCHIRA DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 680692.
2. AMMINI AMMA @ KUCHUKUTTY AMMA,
W/O PRABHAKARAN NAIR, CHEMBUCHIRA DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 680692.
3. VENU, S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
CHAZHIKAD KUNDOOR DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 680 692.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.VENUGOPAL
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
-------------------------------------
OP(C) No.1332 of 2010-O
-------------------------------------
Dated 31st December 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
This is a petition filed under Article 227 of theConstitution of India, seeking the following relief :
“issue an appropriate order or direction commanding theSub Court to consider Ext.P4 objections filed againstExt.P3 report and plan and to decide the same and onlythereafter to conduct trial in the said suit.”
2. The petitioner is the first plaintiff in OS No.151
of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda.The suit is one for declaration of title and for other reliefs. Itis seen that a Commissioner's report and plan have beenprepared in the case. According to the petitioner, there areserious mistakes and errors in the report and plan soprepared. So, he has filed objections to the same. Thegrievance of the petitioner is that without considering theobjections filed by him, the suit is going to be listed for trial.It is stated that unless the objections are considered and a OP(C) No.1332/10
fresh report and plan are obtained, proper adjudication ofthe matter may not be possible and it may cause seriousprejudice to him. Therefore, the petitioner prays that theremay be a direction to the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda toconsider the objections filed by him and thereafter, list thesuit for trial.
3. The above prayer seems to be only just andproper. The petitioner has averred in the petition that hehas serious objections against the commissioner's reportand plan, since there are patent mistakes and errorstherein. So, he has filed objections against the report andplan. Of course, it could be said that the objections couldbe considered at the time of trial. But, that would onlycomplicate the matter. So, it would be only just and fairthat the objections filed by the petitioner are consideredbefore listing the case for trial.
In the result, there will be a direction to thePrincipal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda to consider the objectionsfiled by the petitioner to the commissioner's report filed in OP(C) No.1332/10
OS No.151/05 before listing the matter for trial. But, this willnot preclude the trial court from considering if theobjections can be considered at the time of trial andreserving the liberty of the petitioner to assail the reportand plan then.
The OP(C) is disposed of as above.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta