IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J
Satheeshan – Appellant
Versus
Vijayappan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court emphasizes that material judicial findings (like previous judgments) must be weighed when determining the necessity of commissioning new reports. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order dated 29.08.2022 in I.A.No.2/2022 in O.S.No.1074/2015 on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Alappuzha. Ext.P6 is an order whereby a request to appoint a Commissioner filed by the petitioners who are defendants in the suit was dismissed on the ground that they had not filed objection to the earlier report. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the report that had been filed, it has been noted by the Advocate Commissioner that there is a way. According to the petitioners there is no such way. The petitioners have filed an application seeking to set aside the said commission report, which is pending consideration. Petitioners have also produced Ext.P7 judgment in O.S.No.8/2016 filed by the 1st petitioner in which there is a categoric finding that there is no pathway through the plaint schedule property, which is being used by the defendants.
2. Even though notice was issued and served on the respondent there is no appearanc
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.