A petition must demonstrate clear legal claims or counterclaims to warrant judicial interference under Article 227, which the petitioner failed to do.

J U D G M E N T

This original petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order passed by the Munsiff's court, Kuthuramabu in I. A. No. 265 of 2016 in O. S. No. 114 of 2013 dated 05.04.2016 and review application No. 3010 of 2016 in I. A. 265 of 2016 in O. S. No. 114 of 2013 dated 31.08.2016, filed by the petitioner / 1st defendant in the suit.

2. As per the order in I. A. No. 265 of 2016, the relief sought for by the original petitioner to remit the Commission report to the Advocate Commissioner was declined and even though a review was filed, it was also declined on the ground that the original petitioner has not made out any case for remittance of the Commission report, and review of the order passed in the Interlocutory Application.

3. The original petitioner is the 1st defendant in O. S. 114 of

2013 and the petitioner in I. A. No. 265 of 2016 on the files of the Munsiff's court, Kuthuparamba. The suit is filed for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction. The petitioner had filed a written statement pointing out that there is undivided property of the petitioner in the southern side of the plaint schedule property, and according to the petitioner, the plaintiff / respondent is trying to grab the property by unnecessarily filing the above suit.

4. In the suit an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner visited the property and filed a report and plan.

5. According to the original petitioner, the prayer in the suit is for fixation of boundary in respect of 2.790 acres of property, but as per the commission report and plan, the total extent of the plaint schedule property is shown as 3.00 acres.

6. The case projected by the original petitioner is that the Commissioner has added excess land into the plaint schedule property, without any identification of the adjacent lands with the aid of the title deeds, and therefore, the Advocate Commissioner has travelled beyond the scope of the Commission warrant, as also the suit.

7. The petitioner accordingly filed I. A. No. 265 of 2016 under Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for remitting the report and plan to the same Commissioner for a fresh report and plan.

8. However, the Munsiff has passed Ext. P6 order in I. A. No.

265 of 2016 holding that in the written statement there is no case for the petitioner and others that the respondents are possessing their property, and further that no counterclaim is raised and therefore without any pleading in regard to the excess property found out by the Advocate Commissioner, the claim cannot be entertained as it is beyond the scope of the suit. It was aggrieved by the said order, a review petition was filed and in the review petition also, the Munsiff's court found that in the written statement, what is pleaded by the petitioner is that on the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property, there is some extent of property owned by Kelappan, the father of the defendants.

9. However, in I. A. No. 265 of 2016 filed seeking remission of the report to the Advocate Commissioner, what has been stated is that 84 cents of property of the father of the petitioner is now possessed by the respondents / plaintiffs and that the property must be measured. In the review also the Munsiff has clearly found that there is no pleading with regard to the allegation and there is no counter claim in the written statement in respect of any property held by the plaintiffs and therefore there is no error apparent on the face of record liable to be reviewed.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Adv. Rosin and perused the pleadings and material on record.

11. The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required against the factual findings rendered by the Munsiff's court in the applications filed by the original petitioner. 12. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not have any case before the Munsiff's court while filing the written st