OP(C) No. 682 of 2011 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V CHITAMBARESH
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
OP(C).No. 682 of 2011 (O) APPENDIXPETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :EXT.P1:COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 1673/2005 ON THE FILES OF THE IIIRDADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RENT CONTROL) COURT, ERNAKULAM.EXT.P2:COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 25.8.2009 FILED BY THERESPONDENTS HEREIN IN O.S. NO. 1673/2005.EXT.P3:COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT IN O.S NO. 1673/2005.EXT.P4:COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THEDEFENDANT IN O.S. NO. 1673/2005.EXT.P5:COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY ADV. COMMISSIONER INO.S. NO. 1673/2005.EXT.P5(a)COPY OF THE PLAN FILED BY ADV. COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO.1673/2005.EXT.P6COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT TO THE COMMISSION REPORT AND PLAN.EXT.P7COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION -IA NO. 5568/2010 O.S. NO.1673/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.EXT.P8COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2010 IN IA NO. 5568/2010 OS NO.1673/2005 OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RENT CONTROL) COURT,ERNAKULAM.RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGEMn V.CHITAMBARESH,J. = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(C) No.
682 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 12th day of November, 2012 J U D G M E N TAn order refusing to remit the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner in a suit for fixation of boundary and for consequential injunction is under challenge. Thepetitioner/defendant contends that the Advocate Commissionerhas not measured and identified the property with reference to the title deed of either parties and that the utilisation of aportion of the property for the formation of the road has not been noticed. A detailed analysis of the evidence on record at this interlocutory stage is impermissible in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I permit the petitioner to examine the AdvocateCommissioner and lead other evidence to contradict the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner . It is open to the court below to remit the report and plan to the AdvocateCommissioner if it finds that the same is lacking in material particulars.
Such exercise need be resorted to, if necessary, after O.P.(C) No. 682 of 20112the evidence is recorded and of course untrammelled by any observation contained in the order impugned. The order of the court below is affirmed subject to the above reservation. The Original Petition(Civil) is disposed of. V.CHITAMBARESH.JUDGEsmm O.P.(C) No. 682 of 20113
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.