High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
KANHIRAKADAVATH MUHAMMED S/O. SAIDALI v. KANHIRAKADAVATH KUNHEEMA UMMA - WP(C) No. 20007 of 2003(F)  RD-KL 6841 (2 April 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 20007 of 2003(F)
1. KANHIRAKADAVATH MUHAMMED S/O. SAIDALI
2. KANHIRAKADAVATH MARIKKAR S/O. SAIDALI
3. KANHIRAKADAVATH HYDERALI S/O. SAIDALI
1. KANHIRAKADAVATH KUNHEEMA UMMA
2. ABOOBACKER S/O. PALAKURUSSI CHEMBIL
For Petitioner :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.W.P.(C) Nos.20007 & 20077 of 2003 Dated 2nd April, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
Orders passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Manjeri in O.S.93/98 and O.S.315/95 respectively are under challenge in these writ petitions. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Advocate Commissioner did not get sufficient time to identify the property and submit the report, and hence the suits should not have been tried without the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The learned Sub Judge took the view that it was the look out of the plaintiff in case the property is not properly identified and that was not a cause of worry for the petitioners. After having heard the counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that it is only in the interests of justice that the request of the Advocate Commissioner for the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor is granted, so that the property could be properly identified. Hence the writ petitions are disposed of setting aside the orders under challenge with a further direction to the Sub Court to direct the Advocate Commissioner to submit the report after the identification of the property with the assistance of the OP Nos.20007&20077/03 2 Taluk Surveyor, within two months. Only thereafter, the suits shall be proceeded with.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH, JO.P.Nos.20007 & 20077 of 2003
J U D G M E N T
Dated 2nd April, 2007.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.