Anilkumar vs Marakkar

The impugned Exhibit P7 order dated 9.8.2017 of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Mannarkkad, is challenged by the aggrieved petitioner/3rd plaintiff in this

Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner filed I.A.No.279 of 2017 in O.S.No.34 of 2005 seeking remittal of the Commission report dated 17.8.2016. It is submitted that many

of the objections taken to the report and plan were not considered by the court below. I did not have the advantage of hearing the respondent who

was served in this proceeding.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that defendant No.2 had also taken serious objection to the report and plan and sought for remittal

of the same. Exhibit P6 objection dated 22.9.2016 filed by the first defendant also shows that he too do not support the report and plan.

In that event, I wonder as to how the court below was pleased to decline the request made by the petitioner for remittal of the report. On looking at

the entire facts on record, I am not inclined to sustain the impugned order. It calls for interference.

In the result, this Original Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. There will be a direction to the court below to consider the objections

raised by both of the parties to the report and plan afresh and take appropriate decision in accordance with law, after affording the parties sufficient

opportunities to substantiate their respective contentions. There shall be further direction to the court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as

possible taking into account of the fact that it is a suit of 2005.