IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave errors or violations of law, not to re-evaluate facts or evidence from subordinate courts.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

Ext.P15, P16 and P23 orders passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Varkala in O.S.No.265/1999 are under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in the said suit. Exts.P15 and P16 are orders disallowing the prayer for impleadment of additional defendants. Ext.P23 is one rejecting the prayer for removal of Advocate Commissioner appointed in the case for measuring out the properties.

2. The suit is one for fixation of boundary and anciliary reliefs. The property of the plaintiff has been scheduled as plaint A schedule property, and that of the defendant as plaint B schedule property. Earlier, the suit was decreed, but it was challenged in appeal by the plaintiff himself. It is the second stage of litigation which is now pending before the trial court after a remand of the case by the appellate court. Upon the application of the plaintiff, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to measure out the properties and to fix the southern boundary of plaint A schedule property with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor. However, in the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2693/2019 for impleadment of the wife and mother-in-law of the defendant as additional defendants in the suit stating the reason that he got information that the aforesaid persons are having some right over the plaint B schedule property. During the pendency of the above impleadment application, the mother-in-law of the defendant died, and accordingly, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1/2020 for the impleadment of legal representatives of the mother-in-law of defendant. The learned Munsiff dismissed I.A.No.2693/2019 vide Ext.P15 order holding that the impleadment sought for cannot be allowed since the plaintiff had not made clear as to what kind of right or interest the proposed additional defendants were having over the plaint schedule properties. Consequential to the dismissal of I.A.No.2693/2019, I.A.No.1/2020 was also dismissed as infructuous vide Ext.P16 order. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.16/2021 for the removal of the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the case. The reason stated is that at the time of visit of the suit properties, the Advocate Commissioner spent most of his time in the defendants’ property, and that he was not ready to accept the demand of the plaintiff to conduct the measurement of the properties in the way suggested by the plaintiff. The above application of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P23 order. It is thus that the plaintiff is now before this Court with the present petition challenging Ext.P15, P16 and P23 orders passed by the trial court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. As already stated above, Ext.P15 is the order of dismissal of the impleadment application filed by the plaintiff who wanted to arraign the wife and mother-in-law of the defendant as additional defendants stating the reason that he had got information that the aforesaid persons were having some right over the plaint B schedule property belonging to the defendant. Apart from a bare statement in the above regard, the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the above impleadment application (Ext.P12), did not contain anything to show that the presence of the aforesaid persons was necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute and to settle all the questions involved in the suit. It is under the above circumstances that the learned Munsiff passed Ext.P15 order disallowing the prayer of the plaintiff seeking impleadment of the wife and mother-in-law of the defendant. Ext.P16 order has been passed consequential to Ext.P15 order since there arose no question of a further impleadment of the legal representatives of the mother-inlaw of the defendant in view of the dismissal of Ext.P12 impleadment application. There is no definite contention for the plaintiff that t