Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NOOR JAHAN ALIAS KHAIRUNEESA versus KUNHIKKAMMU, S/O.UMMER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NOOR JAHAN ALIAS KHAIRUNEESA v. KUNHIKKAMMU, S/O.UMMER - WP(C) No. 33247 of 2005(G) [2007] RD-KL 9483 (5 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33247 of 2005(G)

1. NOOR JAHAN ALIAS KHAIRUNEESA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KUNHIKKAMMU, S/O.UMMER,
... Respondent

2. PETTOORI KUTTIMAN, S/O.PONNAN,

3. HUSSAIN, S/O.KUNJAKKUTTY,

4. SAINABA, D/O. - DO - - DO -

5. SUHARA, D/O. - DO - - DO -

6. ZEENATH, - DO - - DO -

7. ASHRAF, S/O. - DO - - DO -

8. ALI, S/O. ALAVI,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI

For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :05/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) NO.33247 of 2005

Dated this the 5th day of June 2007



JUDGMENT

Ext.P9 order passed by the learned Munsiff on an application submitted by the petitioner/plaintiff for remittance of the Commission report and plan is under challenge in this proceedings under Article 227.

2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what was sought for was only a remittance of the report and plan to the Commissioner so that the Commissioner could submit a report regarding the aspects mentioned in the work memo to file which the petitioner had already been permitted by the court. I am not persuaded on the submission of the learned counsel to agree that Ext. P9 order warrants corrections in this court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article WPC No. 33247/2005 2

227. As noticed by the learned Munsiff, the Commission Report was filed on 6.1.2003 and even at the time when the present application for remittance of the report was filed i.e. which is in 2005 the petitioner had not filed any objection to the Commission report. Earlier objection filed by the very same petitioner for setting aside the report had been dismissed by the learned Munsiff vide order in I.A. No. 67/2003 and that order had become final. Under the above circumstances, Ext.P9 order, in my view is justified. I confirm Ext.P9. However, though no objections have been filed by the petitioner to the commission report, I permit the petitioner to cross-examine the Commissioner with reference to the aspects mentioned in the work memo stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner. The Commissioner is also permitted to ask such question in cross examination as would be necessary for bringing forth the relevant aspects covered by the work memo. If the court below is convinced on the basis of the evidence given by WPC No. 33247/2005 3 the Commissioner that there is warrant for directing the Commissioner to make a fresh visit for reporting on the aspects mentioned in the work memo confirmation of Ext.P9 by this court will not stand in the way. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

JUDGE.

dpk


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.