MYDHILI Vs. SHEENA M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed to set aside the order dtd. 17/2/2019 in I.A.2069/2019 in O.S.594/2015 (Ext.P9) passed by the Court of the Additional Munsiff-I, Kozhikode.

(2.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the above suit filed against the respondent, seeking a decree for a permanent perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of the petitioners over plaint 'B' schedule pathway.

(3.) Pursuant to Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioners, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who filed Ext.P3 report. The said report was remitted back, and thereafter, Ext.P4 report was filed. Since Ext.P4 report was also incomplete, the petitioners filed a fresh application along with Ext.P5 work memo to remit the commission report. Even though an Advocate Commissioner inspected the property on 29/5/2017, Ext.P6 report was filed only on 7/11/2018. In Ext.P6, the Advocate Commissioner has erroneously observed the age of the construction carried out between plaint 'A' and 'B' plaint schedule properties. Hence, the petitioners had filed Ext.P7 application to remit Ext.P6 commission report. The same was objected by the respondent through Ext.P8 objection. The court below, without considering Exts.P7 and P8, has by the impugned Ext.P9 order dismissed Ext.P7 application. Ext.P9 is erroneous and wrong. Hence the original petition.