J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff in O.S. No.576 of 2008 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P4, order dismissing I.A. No.1103 of 2010. That was an application filed by petitioner to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to determine value at current market rate to purchase two rooms having same dimension and convenience as room No.12/181. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P4, order. Learned counsel contends that fact that petitioner had as relief (B) prayed for damages in case respondent No.1-defendant failed to comply with the agreement was lost sight of while passing Ext.P4, order. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that respondent No.1 has no liability to pay damages as pleaded, no question of payment of damages is involved and that the damages payable according to the petitioner, not even estimated in the plaint, not to say that no court fee also was paid for such amount. Counsel for respondent No.2-plaintiff No.2 supported petitioner.

2. The suit as framed is one for mandatory injunction, in effect to direct respondent No.1 comply with an agreement dated 02.08.2005 and recovery of damages.