MOHANAN.S. Vs. LAKSHMANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the judgment debtor in O.S. No.188 of 1997. The respondent filed E.A. No.139 of 2009 and E.P.No.25 of 2010 under Section 47 of the Criminal Procedure Code to get the redelivery of the decree schedule property, having an extent of 3 acres and 23 meters including a residential building, in re-survey No. 433/2-1 of Pallippuram Village. In the said application, the petitioner had filed another I.A. for appointing a Commissioner. The said I.A was allowed by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P5 order. The reason for seeking the deputation of a Commissioner was on the ground that the property was not identified properly by the earlier Commissioner. The Court appointed a senior Advocate Commissioner and to assist him, a qualified surveyor was also appointed.

(2.) WHILE so, the respondent herein filed an application regarding the maintainability of the petition. The respondent approached this Court by filing a writ petition for an early disposal of the E.A. filed by the petitioners and accordingly without waiting for the Commissioners report, the learned Munsiff passed the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent would submit that all the properties have been identified properly by the previous Commissioner and all these aspects have been considered by this Court in a revision petition (C.R.P. No. 849/2007). But it is relevant to note that Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Munsiff, for deputing the Commissioner was not challenged.