The court held that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 is not invoked when a trial court's procedural orders are challenged.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext. P10 order, by which the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, allowed an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for the appointment of a Commissioner assisted by an expert.

2. As per the impugned order, the trial court appointed Adv. Babitha T.H. as the Commissioner, and both parties were directed to submit a panel of qualified experts.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the inspection of the property by an expert is unnecessary, having regard to the limited scope of the disputes involved.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. Having considered the contentions raised in the petition and the reasons stated in the impugned order, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , especially when the trial court has appointed the same Commissioner who inspected the property earlier, albeit without the assistance of any expert. Whatever be the grievance of the petitioner, all those could be raised before the trial court in the course of the further proceedings. In the light of the above observations, the original petition is closed. It is made clear that the petitioner is also entitled to submit a work memo.

Sd/-