JOHN MATHAI Vs. SULAIMAN KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 5th defendant in O.S.No.437 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam is the petitioner. THE writ petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P6 order passed by the said court in I.A.No.508 of 2008. THE said I.A was filed by one of the plaintiffs to appoint an advocate commissioner to measure the plaint schedule property and to prepare a plan with the help of a surveyor. THE petitioner herein opposed the prayer of the plaintiff. It is the case of the petitioner that the right, title and possession of the predecessor of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property was the specific issue in O.S.No.5 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Krishnapuram and that their claim was negatived by the said court. THErefore the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. THE said contention would have been taken in to consideration before passing Ext.P6 order.

(2.) SUIT was filed for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property. I.A.No.508 of 2008 was filed for deputing an advocate commissioner to measure the plaint schedule property and prepare a plan with the assistance of a surveyor. The question as to whether the plaintiffs have got right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property is a question to be decided after trial. Therefore the objection raised by the petitioner herein against granting the prayer in I.A.508 of 2008 cannot stand. The court below is satisfied that there is sufficient reason to allow the application and it is just and necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner for the matters to be ascertained as requested in the petition. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed.