MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI Vs. MOIDEENKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST respondent appears through counsel.

(2.) AS amended, challenge is to the orders dated 18.12.2012 and 20.12.2012 in O.S.No.102 of 2008 of the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Munsiff that it is without inspecting the property that the Advocate Commissioner has filed Ext.P8, memo. It is also submitted that based on Ext.P8, memo, learned Munsiff had directed petitioner to take steps and accordingly petitioner filed Ext.P5, application. In the circumstance, learned Munsiff was not right in passing the impugned orders, it is contended. Learned counsel submitted that proper identification of property is necessary.