GLORY GEORGE Vs. KUNJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 3, 4 and 5 in O.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, are aggrieved by the order dated 7.12.2010 in I.A.No.3041 of 2010, by which, the court below allowed the application filed by the first defendant to appoint a Commissioner for local inspection.

(2.) THE suit was filed for setting aside a document executed in favour of the petitioners by the father of the parties. THE mother is the plaintiff. THE mother prayed for setting aside the document executed in favour of the petitioners. THE first defendant supported the mother. THE first defendant filed I.A.No.3041 of 2010 to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule property and to file a report and plan and to note the points mentioned in the Commission application.

(3.) NO prejudice would be caused to the petitioners (defendants 3 to 5) if a Commissioner is appointed. The suit is of the year 2009 and the application was filed without delay. The court below exercised the discretion to allow the application for appointment of a Commissioner. There is no illegality or impropriety or error of law in the order impugned in this Original Petition warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.