Aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2014 in I.A.No.1689/2014 in O.S No.91/2012 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, the plaintiff before the court below has come up with this original petition. By the said order, the court below refused to remit back the Commissioner's report as prayed for by the plaintiff. 2. The suit is one for fixation of boundary between the two properties and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaintiff claims to have obtained plaint schedule property as per Ext.A1 document. According to him, property on the northern side belongs to the defendant and there is no boundary separating these properties and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to fix the northern boundary.
3. The defendants resisted the suit pointing out that there are well defined boundaries between the properties. In the suit, O.P.(C) No.2765/2014 2 the petitioner applied for issuance of a commission and a commission was issued and the Commissioner filed Exts.C1, C1 (a) and C1(b), reports and plan. Later the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1689/2014 pointing out that the properties have not been properly measured and it is necessary to re-measure the property with the aid of certain documents which he produced along with the remission application.
4. The court below noticed that the suit is one for fixation of northern boundary and that even going by the plaintiff's claim his property is situated in survey No.442/1. The lower court also noticed that the Commissioner has noted all those aspects which were required by the plaintiff in his commission application and the present prayer for further measurement of the property on the basis of certain documents is unnecessary.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after having gone through the Commissioner's report and also the order of the court below, this Court felt that the court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that as of now there is nothing wrong in the Commissioner's report and there is O.P.(C) No.2765/2014 3 no defect in ascertaining the boundaries of the two properties. The court below also safeguarded the interest of the plaintiff that if during trial of the suit it is found that Commissioner's report is not acceptable, appropriate steps can be taken at that point of time. That seems to be a just and reasonable observation in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also held that the plaintiff is not precluded from adducing evidence. There is no reason to believe that the court below will not permit the plaintiff to examine the Commissioner and Surveyor if any. Since the lower court has safeguarded the interest of the plaintiff, there is nothing to interfere with the order of the lower court.
This original petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp