IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 34422 of 2008(W) ---------------------------------------- OS.132/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHALINA EALIAS CALLED AS SHALINA VARKEY W/O.JUSTIN, AGED 29 YEARS, KOLLENAL HOUSE, MEMUGHAM, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT 8C/46, PRATAP NAGAR -2,TONK PHATAK, JAIPUR-4, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.M. EALIAS, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 69 YEARS, KOLLENAL HOUSE, MEMUGHAM, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.M.M.ALIAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MATHAI,S/O.PAPPY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING IN TOC-H INSTITUE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARAKKUNNAM, NEAR PIRAVOM, RESIDING AT PARETH HOUSE, KUZHIKKADY KARA, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. SURENDRAN CALLED AS SURA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, MEMUGHAM, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK 3. ISAAC, S/O.PAILY, AGED 71 YEARS, KURUTTUKAVIL VEEDU, MEMUGHAM KARA, MANEED VILLAGE. 4. MATHAI, S/O. CHANDY, AGED 72 YEARS, PANDIRICKAL HOUSE, MEMUGHAM KARA, MANEED VILLAGE. 5. SKARIA,S/O.KORA, AGED 73 YEARS, VATHAKKATTIL HOUSE, MEMUGHAM KARA, MANEED VILLAGE. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.R.SADASIVAN NAIR, MR.S.K.AJAY KUMAR, SMT.PRIYA. H. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 34422/2008-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.430/2003 OF S.R.O. PIRAVOM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR DATED 15/03/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION DATED 18/11/2008 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE EXTRACT ORDER IN I.A.3784/2008 DATED 19/11/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF RELEVANT PAGE SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN SY. NO.299/8 OF PURAMBOKE REGISTER OF THE MANEED VILLAGE. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LITHO PLAN WHICH INCLUDES THE PLAN IN SY NOS.299/8 AND 308/3 . RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.34422 OF 2008 (W) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Honourable Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha to allow the prayer for ascertaining the point Nos.6 to 10 in the commission application I.A.No.3784/2008 in O.S.No.132/2008. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupzuha. Suit is for perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondents are the defendants. The dispute involved in the suit related to 'C' and 'D' schedule properties, described as puramboke thodus, which according to the petitioner/plaintiff was closed. That WPC.34422/08 2 was disputed by the contesting defendants contending that they are not closed, but, portions of their property. Whatever that be, at the time when the case came up in the list for trial, petitioner moved an application for appointment of a commissioner for determining various points including measurement of 'C' and 'D' schedule properties. That application was dismissed by the court below after hearing both sides vide Exts.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Copy of the written statement of the contesting defendants was not furnished to the plaintiff in time and he could get hold of the written statement only much later, and that caused the delay in moving the application before the inclusion of the case in the special list of trial, is the submission of the counsel. Perusing Ext.P4 order, I find no material whatsoever was placed before the court to substantiate the case canvassed by WPC.34422/08 3 the petitioner that 'C' and 'D' schedule properties are thodus, which come within 'purambokku' as claimed by the plaintiff. Relying on two documents produced in the writ petition after it was admitted and taken on the file of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such documents would substantiate the case of the plaintiff. Whatever that be, the fact remains that no document was produced before the court at the time when the commission application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff came up for consideration before the court. On the facts and circumstances presented, I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P4 order. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp