IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27366 of 2007(G) -------------------------- OS.1165/2005 of I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. JOLLY VARGHESE,S/O. VARGHESE,RESIDING AT VITHAYATHIL HOUSE, HO.NO.34/2130 A, BTS- MAMANGALAM CROSS ROAD, KOCHI-24, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE. 2. C.V.SEBASTIAN @ KUNJAPPAN,S/O. LATE VARGHESE,RESIDING AT CAKOTU THARAYIL, MAMANGALAM-POTTAKKUZHY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM PO, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, W/O.PARAMESWARAN, NEELIVEETTICHIRAYIL,RESIDING AT HAREESH MANDIR,EDAPPALLY PO, KOCHI-24. 2. PARAMESWARAN,S/O. GANGADHARAN NAIR, NEELIVEETTICHIRAYIL,RESIDING AT HAREESH MANDIR,EDAPPALLY PO, KOCHI-24. 3. HARISH,S/O.PARAMESWARAN, NEELIVEETTICHIRAYIL,RESIDING AT HAREESH MANDIR,EDAPPALLY PO, KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH FRANKLIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 27366/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 1165/05 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OS 165/05 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P3. COPY OF IA 6032/07 IN OS 1165/05 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 28.7.07 IN IA 6032/07 IN OS 1165/05 /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 27366 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Ernakulam, in IA 6032/07 in OS 1165/05. It was an application for issuance of a Commission. The court below dismissed it on the ground that the petitioners want to get fixation of boundaries when no such relief is sought in plaint. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has given me a copy of the document whereby the defendants in the suit had transferred the property in favour and also given the right to take the Ambassador car. A perusal of the document schedule would reveal that the passage must have a width of 2.30 metres with the necessary bell-mouths to take Ambassador car through that way to the house of the plaintiffs. There had been fight between the parties in the form of violation of the orders etc. about which I do not want to say in detail. But I feel that for a proper decision in the case one has to clearly demarcate the bell-mouths as well as the passage so that there can be a permanent settlement of dispute between the parties. 3. It is submitted by the defendants that there is sufficient bell- mouth and the passage as contemplated in the document and therefore nothing further is necessary. The other side would contend that the bell- WPC NO 27366/07 2 mouths as well as the width of the passage had been interfered with and therefore there has to be a clear demarcation. 4. I direct the court below to appoint a commissioner to prepare a sketch showing the bell-mouths, its width and also the passage with its width. If there is any shortage, which according to the commissioner will make the plaintiffs enable to take the car through the property, to suggest the width of the bell-mouth and also to find out where exactly the passage is not having a width of 2.30 metres. I direct the court below to appoint a senior experienced commissioner to do this work and submit a plan and report. The court shall also hear both sides and then decide the matter in accordance with law which will give a permanent solution to the dispute between the parties. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 27366/07 3 WPC NO 27366/07 4