IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21495 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.73/2008 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- N.V.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, NELLUVELI MANA PANGODE, VADAVUCODE, REPRESENTED BY M.N.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, AMBALAMUGHAL BY POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 12.2.2008. BY ADVS. MR.P.KESAVAN NAIR, MR.K.G.CLEETUS. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- MANOHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, PUTHUVANA PARAMBIL HOUSE, KODINJOOR KARA, AMBALAMUGAL P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21495 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P7. ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor to reconsider Exhibits P5 and P6 on merits and pass fresh orders”. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. Suit is one for fixation of boundary and perpetual prohibitory injunction and respondent is the defendant in that suit. Plaintiff applied for appointment of a commissioner to measure out the suit property. That application was allowed by the court whereunder a direction was given that the defendant can also file work memo to ascertain matters which may be relevant for adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit, subject to a condition that such memo has to be filed within 15 days. Accordingly, the defendant filed work memo within the time fixed in which he sought among others measuring of his property with reference to the resurvey plan. The court below allowed that application overruling W.P.(C).No.21495 of 2009 - O 2 the objections raised by the petitioner/plaintiff. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the impugned order passed by the court below, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and it is dispensed with. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that measuring out of the property of the defendant and other matters stated in the work memo of the defendant are not necessary for a fair and proper adjudication of the suit. It is further submitted that resurvey has not become final and it is the definite case of the plaintiff that in the measurement by survey authorities in resurvey, some portion of the plaint property is shown as belonging to the defendant. Whatever that be, in the nature of the disputes arising for consideration if the defendant wants to measure out his property and also identify its boundaries, it may be relevant for a proper adjudication of the W.P.(C).No.21495 of 2009 - O 3 disputes involved in the suit. At the same time, I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel that the defendant has not sought for identification of his properties with reference to his title deeds, but, only as per the resurvey plan. So much so, if any request is made by the plaintiff for identification of the defendant's property with reference to his title deeds, on his production of a copy of the title deed of the defendant, the court below shall consider whether that is also necessary, after hearing the defendant as well, and pass appropriate orders and in case such application is to be entertained and ordered then the commissioner shall be directed to execute the work in accordance with the order passed by the court. The writ petition is closed subject to the above observation. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and transmit a copy to the court below. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-