IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).NO. 427 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------- OS.1354/2009 OF III ADDL. M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- N.P.JOHNY,AGED 70,NEELANKAVIL PORINCHU,,KURIACHIRA PO,ANCHERY,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ PRABHAKARAN,S/O.PUTHENPURAVEETIL VELAPPAN,POONKUNNAM,AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR 680 003. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.427 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendant in O.S. No.1354 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-III, Thrissur is the petitioner before me. He is defending a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespass into suit property and commission of waste. According to the respondent the suit property having specific boundaries on all sides as stated in the plaint belonged to and is in his possession as per document No.2459 of 2007. Respondent inter alia contended that description of the property is not clear and that plaint does not even say whether on any side of the suit property petitioner has any property in his possession. Petitioner filed I.A. No.5227 of 2010 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property with the assistance of a Surveyor. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff holding that suit is merely for prohibitory injunction against trespass and commission of waste. Exhibit P6 order is under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that though it is styled as a suit for injunction issue regarding title is also involved and measurement O.P(C) No.427 of 2010 -: 2 :- of the property is essential. 2. I find myself unable to give my assent to the argument. The suit as framed is merely for prohibitory injunction stating that suit property acquired by the respondent as per document No.2459 of 2007 has specific boundaries on all four sides. Exhibit P3, report and plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner also prima facie shows that. If description of the property is not clear and it has no specific boundaries as claimed by him, it goes to the disadvantage of respondent- plaintiff. There is no reason why in a suit for injunction based on possession, petitioner-defendant should go for a measurement of the suit property as if it is a suit on title. I must also bear in mind that going by the plaint schedule description no property belonging to the petitioner lies adjacent to the suit property. In the circumstances a measurement of property with the assistance of Surveyor is not warranted. If petitioner has any dispute regarding title claimed by respondent his remedy is elsewhere. I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P6, order. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv