KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.6.2013, passed in I.A.No.1231 of 2013 in O.S.No.601 of 2000, and the order dated 25.7.2013 in O.S.No.601 of 2000, on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam, the defendant came up with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) What is under challenge are the two orders, exhibited as P6 and P7, rejecting appointment of a Commission and rejecting the objection to the valuation of the plaint 'B' schedule property, having an extent of 0.23 cents, alleged to have been trespassed by the defendant. The prayer for mandatory injunction to re-fill the excavated portion was valued at 500/- under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act,1959 (for short 'the Act') and court fee was paid in accordance with the valuation made therein. The defendant filed two applications; one is for issuance of a Commission for ascertaining the value of 0.23 cents of property, scheduled in the plaint as 'B' schedule, for the purpose of valuation and court fee and by the other application, disputed the valuation statement in the plaint. The lower court dismissed the application for appointment of a Commission and rejected the objection raised regarding valuation statement.

(3.) Aggrieved by the abovesaid two orders, Exts.P6 and P7, this petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The questions raised are:-