Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJAM VENKITESWARAN versus T.B. PRADEEP, THAYYIL HOUSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJAM VENKITESWARAN v. T.B. PRADEEP, THAYYIL HOUSE - WP(C) No. 26013 of 2006(V) [2007] RD-KL 12519 (9 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26013 of 2006(V)

1. RAJAM VENKITESWARAN,
... Petitioner

2. RAMASWAMY, S/O. VENKITESWARAN,

Vs

1. T.B. PRADEEP, THAYYIL HOUSE,
... Respondent

2. T.B. VINOD, THAYYIL HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI

For Respondent :SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :09/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.26013 OF 2006 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 9th JULY, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Ext.P7 order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the plaintiffs' application for setting aside the commissioner's report and plan is under challenge in this Writ Petition initiated by the plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution. Obviously, the petitioners- plaintiffs had not adduced any evidence which will substantiate their contention that the commissioner's report and plan were liable to be set aside. I do not find any warrant for setting aside Ext.P7 in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. However, even as I approve Ext.P7 and direct continuance of the trial of the suit, there will be a direction to the court below to permit the petitioners to adduce whatever evidence they have against the commissioner's report, i.e., in substantiation of the objections filed by them to the commissioner's report, and take a decision on the question of acceptability or otherwise of the commissioner's report and plan, even before judgment is delivered in the suit. In other words, after the entire evidence is recorded in the suit, the parties will be heard initially on the question of acceptability or otherwise of the commissioner's report and the court will give its decision on that question and thereafter only WP(C)N0.26013/06 the judgment in the suit will be delivered. If the court below comes to be convinced on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioners that the commissioner's report and plan are liable to be set aside, confirmation of Ext.P7 by this Court will not stand in the way of the court passing appropriate orders either appointing a fresh commission or remitting the commissioner's report to the same commissioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.26013/06 WP(C)N0.26013/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.