VALIYAKANDATHIL FATHIMA Vs. VALIYAKANDATHIL KUNHALAVI HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P9, order dismissing Ext.P6, application for appointment of a commission in C.M.A.No.4 of 2013 of the Sub Court, Tirur is under challenge.

(2.) PETITIONERS and others filed O.S.No.208 of 2012 in the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi for a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondents/defendants causing obstruction to the plaint B schedule way and for mandatory injunction to restore a portion of plaint B schedule way (allegedly) obstructed by the respondent. Applications for temporary/mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial court by Ext.P3, order which petitioners and others have challenged in C.M.A.No.4 of 2013 in the Sub Court, Tirur. In C.M.A.No.4 of 2013, petitioners filed I.A.No.378 of 2013 to appoint an advocate commissioner to ascertain certain matters which learned Sub Judge has dismissed by Ext.P9, order.

(3.) ON going through Ext.P6, application it is seen that many of the matters sought to be ascertained through the Advocate Commissioner are not required to be done for disposal of C.M.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2013 as it related to identification of plaint A schedule item claimed to be belonging to the petitioners and others.