AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 350 wordsC.S.Dias, J
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with Ext.P6 order passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Mannarkkad, in I.A.No.884/2022 in O.S.No.30/2018, the plaintiff in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.
The antecedent facts leading to Ext.P6 order, in a narrow compass, are: the petitioner has filed the suit against the respondents for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The respondents have resisted the suit by Ext.P2 written statement. An Advocate Commissioner had inspected the property and has filed Ext.P3 report. Even though the petitioner wanted to file an application to remit the report, due to the pandemic he was prevented from filing the application. He is an Adivasi. Now, the petitioner filed I.A.No.884/2022 (Ext.P4) to remit the commission report. The same was opposed by the respondents by Ext.P5 objection. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, has rejected Ext.P4. Ext.P6 is palpably wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.
Heard; Sri. V.A.Johnson (Varikkappallil), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The question is whether there is any illegality in Ext.P6 order?.
The suit is of the year 2018. Ext.P2 report was filed as early as on 02.06.2018. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 report. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not filed any objection to Ext.P3 report. The issues were framed as early as on 02.06.2018. The suit is listed for trial. It is only now that the petitioner has felt the necessity to seek remission of the report, that too, without filing an objection to the report. The court below, after finding the Advocate Commissioner has already identified the plaint schedule property and its boundaries, has felt that there is no necessity to remit the report at this belated stage i.e., after a period of four years after Ext.P3 report. I do not find any error in Ext.P6 order, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The original petition fails and is dismissed.