CHEMMARALATH MOHANAN AND ANR. Vs. C.K.MAHAMOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Original Petitions (Civil) arise out of two different impugned interlocutory orders passed by the trial court, which in turn arise out of the same suit. The parties in both the cases are the same. The petitioners herein are defendants in the suit for recovery of possession and injunction. The suit was stated to be filed at a time when the petitioners/ defendants had collected materials for carrying out certainly urgent repairs to the building, where the petitioners were residing for the last so many years. That in view of the order of injunction, the petitioners herein were not able to complete the repairs. That an application for commission was also duly filed by the respondents herein along with the suit. It is stated that as the petitioners herein had gone out of the house, the Advocate commissioner could not inspect the house. The petitioners filed an application to permit them to complete the works. That as per the orders on the application filed by the petitioners, the commission again visited the house and reported on the conditions of the house. The court below had also permitted the petitioners to carry out the repairs without altering the structures. The petitioners completed the repairs under the supervision of the commissioner. It is further brought to notice that the interim order of injunction is still in force. Thereafter the respondents had filed the present application [one is Ext.P-12 in O.P(C).No. 2673/2017 viz. I.A.No. 1537/ 2017 for a direction of the trial court to remit the commissioner's report and to direct the commissioner to inspect the property with the assistance of the surveyor by verifying the records and had also filed Ext.P-12 in O.P(C).No. 2675/2017 viz., I.A.No.1579/2017 for permission to serve interrogatories on the petitioners. The petitioners herein had filed separate counter affidavits to these two I.As. Ext.P-13 in the first O.P(C). is the counter affidavit filed to the former I.A. and Ext.P-13 in the second O.P(C). is the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners in the latter I.A. The court below has passed impugned orders dated 16.8.2017, whereby the prayers made in both the I.As. filed by the respondents/plaintiffs have been allowed. Ext.P-14 in O.P(C).No. 2675/2017 is the impugned order dated 16.8.2017 passed on the former I.A. for remitting the commissioner's report and Ext.P-14 in the second O.P. is the impugned order dated 16.2.2017 passed by the court below in the latter I.A. It is these orders that is under challenge in these two Original Petition (Civil).

(2.) Heard Sri.K.P.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants and Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ plaintiffs.

(3.) The impugned order produced as Ext.P-14 in O.P(C).No. 2673/2017 reads as follows: ORDER