Ajith vs Meeran

AJITH vs Meeran

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 27, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445253

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1445253
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a. Badharudeen
Decided On: Jan 27, 2022
Case Number: OP(C)/157/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

AJITH

Respondent

Meeran

Excerpt

.....to note outthe 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.3. 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.4. going by the impugned order, itappears 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 andthe court below appointed the same commissioner. no doubt, appointment of different persons as commissioners wouldresult 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. sd/- a.badharudeen, judge. ww appendix of op(c) 157/2022 petitioners' exhibits: exhibit p1 true copy of plaint dated 20.11.2020 in os no.371/2020 of munsiff's court muvattupuzha. exhibit p2 true photocopy of written statement dated 17.06.2021 in os no 371/2020 on the file of munsiff's court, muvattupuzha. exhibit p3 photograph of residential building of the petitioners. exhibit p4 true photo copy of report and plan dated 17.12.2020 submitted by the advocate commissioner in os no. court, muvattupuzha......

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 7TH MAGHA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 157 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 371/2020 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: 1 AJITH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, PUZHAKKARAYIL HOUSE, URAVAKKUZHY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 661. 2 SHEHARA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O AJITH, PUZHAKKARAYIL HOUSE, URAVAKKUZHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 661. BY ADVS. SRI.C.DILIP SMT.ANUSHKA VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS:

1 MEERAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHENPURAYIL(ORAVAKUZHY) HOUSE, KAVUMKARA KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE , MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686 661. 2 SIMIL, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMADALI, RESIDING AT NEDUVELIL HOUSE , KAVUMKARA KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 661. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

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).

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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. Sd/- A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE. ww APPENDIX OF OP(C) 157/2022 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 20.11.2020 IN OS NO.371/2020 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 17.06.2021 IN OS NO 371/2020 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOGRAPH OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF REPORT AND PLAN DATED 17.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS NO. COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF WRITTEN OBJECTION DATED 02.02.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST EXHIBIT P4 REPORT AND PLAN. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF I.A NO.5/2021 IN O.S NO.371/2020 DATED 02.02.2021. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.02.2021 IN I.A NO.05/2021 IN O.S NO.371/2020 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF I.A NO.06/2021 IN O.S NO.371/2020 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 21.12.2021 IN I.A NO.06/2021 IN O.S NO.371/2020 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties AJITH vs Meeran Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a. Badharudeen