Ajith vs Meeran

A. Badharudeen, J

The original petitioners, who are defendants in O.S.No.371/2020 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, have filed this Original Petition

under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by Ext.P7 order (Order in I.A.No.05/2021 dated 02.02.2021).

In this case, after filing one commissioner by Adv.Cibison Jose, an application was filed by the defendants to appoint another commissioner. The

court below appointed the same commissioner to note out the matters sought for by the petitioners herein. In this context, the petitioners filed I.A.

No.5/2021 to appoint any other advocate other than Adv.Cibison Jose on the ground that in the earlier report Adv.Cibison Jose reported wrong facts

before the court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel pressed for relief on the submission that if Adv.Cibison Jose prepare the second

report the same also may be incorrect.

Going by the impugned order, it appears that Adv.Cibison Jose was appointed as commissioner at the instance of the plaintiffs in the above suit and

he had filed a report and mahazar. So the course of action available to the defendants, if they were aggrieved by the finding of the commissioner is to

file objection and challenge the commission report by examining the commissioner. Instead of doing so, another application was filed by the defendants

to appoint another commissioner and the court below appointed the same commissioner. No doubt, appointment of different persons as commissioners

would result in getting contrary reports and such a course of action cannot be permitted in a routine manner.

In view of the matter, the order impugned is found to be in order. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with, on finding perversity or arbitrariness.

In the result, this original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.