VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by Ext P6 order passed in IA No.6/2022 in OS No.348/2014 by the Court of the Munsiff, Kanjirapally, the plaintiff in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondents are the defendants.

(2.) The skeletal facts leading to Ext P6 order are; the petitioner has filed the suit against the respondents, for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and consequential reliefs. In order to identify the plaint schedule property, the petitioner filed IA No.462/2017 (Ext P2) to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner had filed Ext P3 report and sketch, pursuant to the order passed in IA No.616/2018. The petitioner had filed IA No.6/2022 (Ext P4), to set aside the report and sketch. The petitioner also filed Ext P5 objection to Ext P3 report and sketch. The court below posted Ext P4 application for evidence. The Taluk Surveyor was examined. Thereafter, the court below, by the impugned Ext P6 order, has held that the application to set aside Ext P3 report and sketch will be considered along with the suit. Ext P6 is manifestly wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

(3.) Heard; Sri.John Numpeli, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Even though notice has been served on the respondents 3 to 5, there is no appearance for them.