The Munsiff has to dispose the application to set aside a report and plan before proceeding with the suit.

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

1. Petitioner is the first defendant and respondents the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 243 of 2006, on the file of Munsiff Court, Vaikom. This petition is filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext. P5 order passed by Munsiff in IA No. 1549 of 2008, an application filed by the petitioner to advance the hearing of IA No. 1446 of 2008, an application filed by the petitioner to set aside the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. According to the petitioner, before recording the evidence, IA No. 1446 of 2008 is to be heard and an order is to be passed. Learned Munsiff under Ext. P5 order dismissed the application stating that IA No. 1446 of 2008 would be considered along with the suit, and if on the evidence, it is found that the report is not correct, the Court can call for a proper plan and report.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is heard.

3. In view of the order to be passed in this writ petition, I do not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondents, so as to protract the matter or to direct the respondents to appear before the Court.

4. When a petition is filed to set aside the report and plan, before recording the evidence in the suit, Munsiff has to dispose the application. If the report is liable to be set aside, learned Munsiff necessarily has to set aside the report and if not, the application is to be dismissed. Learned Munsiff is not justified in not disposing the application and proceeding the suit. In such circumstances, learned Munsiff is directed to pass orders in Interlocutory Application No. 1446 of 2008, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and only after disposing Interlocutory Application No. 1446 of 2008 to proceed with the suit.