MAYA MADHUSOODANAN Vs. SHOBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P5, order dated 25.11.2011 on I.A.No.2393 of 2010 in O.S.No.272 of 2007 of the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam is under challenge in this original petition at the instance of the 2nd defendant in the suit.

(2.) THE 1st defendant is the husband of the petitioner, working abroad, but represented by a counsel in the trial court. The respondent/plaintiff sued the petitioner and 1st defendant for fixation of boundary with respect to the suit property and for prohibitory injunction. The petitioner and the 1st defendant filed written statement resisting claim of the respondent.

(3.) ON I.A.No.2393 of 2010 the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor were examined as CWs 1 and 2. The documents relied on by the parties were also accepted in evidence. The trial court by Ext.P5, order stated that though it would appear that no notice was issued to the petitioner or the 1st defendant before the inspection, evidence revealed that the petitioner was present at the spot and that at any rate, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner or the 1st defendant. The trial court remitted the report and plan for a limited purpose with certain directions. Ext.P5, order is under challenge.