OUSEPH CHACKO Vs. JOSE POTHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "to call for a examined the records relating to ext. P2 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction".

(2.) PETITIONER is the defendant in a suit pending for disposal for the last more than three decades. From the statements made in the writ petition and also the submissions made, it is seen that the litigation is continuing unabated eversince the suit was instituted as early as in 1978. It is interesting to note that the suit was one for decree of mandatory prohibitory injunction and, it is submitted, it continues for that relief. The writ petition is now filed by the petitioner, one among the defendants in the suit, against an order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request made by the defendants for reviewing an order passed on a commission application. Ext. P2 is that order. Going through the order and having regard to the submissions made, I find that what is involved is only the step taken by the learned Munsiff which at the most affects procedural right and not a substantive right of the parties. The order passed by the learned Munsiff indicate that the commission application was allowed as early as in 1997 and the present order related to refixation of the batta payable to the commissioner. It appears, the suit happened to be dismissed for default during the interregnum. Earlier, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that batta fixed by the court was not paid in time and it resulted in dismissal of the suit. Subsequently, the suit was restored and, then, having regard to the timefactor and the batta which is to be paid to the advocate commissioner at present it was refixed by the learned Munsiff. Such refixation of batta, it appears, was passed in the absence of the counsel appearing for the defendants. His absence or presence is not material. No party can have any say in the matter of fixation of batta to the commissioner, which is within the domain of the court. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed.