KUNHJUKUTTY AMMAL Vs. JAYASREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S.No.259 of 2009 of the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam are the petitioners challenging Ext.P6, common order dated 25.07.2012 on I.A.Nos.214 of 2012, 215 of 2012 and 1084 of 2012.

(2.) THE respondents/plaintiffs sued petitioners for recovery of possession of the plaint C schedule. As per order on I.A.No.1136 of 2009, the Advocate Commissioner after inspection of the properties submitted a report and sketch. In that report, the Commissioner sought the assistance of a Surveyor to measure the properties. THEreon the respondents filed I.A.No.232 of 2012 to remit the report to enable the Advocate Commissioner measure the properties with the assistance of a Surveyor and with reference to the title deeds and survey records. That application was allowed and the Advocate Commissioner measured the properties as per the title deeds and old survey records. THE Advocate Commissioner submitted a report and plan.

(3.) ON the question whether the plan produced along with I.A.No.1192 of 2011 is acceptable or not, the trial court has not taken any decision as seen from Ext.P6, common order. ON the other hand what the trial court has observed is that petitioners can prefer their objection if any, to the report and plan submitted after measurement with the impugned survey plan. There is no reason why this Court should stand in the way of the properties being measured with reference to the plan produced along with I.A.No.1192 of 2011, also in the light of the right reserved for the petitioners to prefer their objection if any to the report and plan the Advocate Commissioner would submit. It follows that in the objection that the petitioners may prefer to the report and plan the Advocate Commissioner submits pursuant to the order on I.A.No.1192 of 2011, it is open to them to raise the non-acceptability of the survey plan as well. In that view of the matter I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P6, order.