IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21947 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2010 IN IA 6445/09 IN OS.336/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BRINDHA VASUDEV,W/O.KOSALA KUMAR, RESIDING AT SUBHADRA NIVAS, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.S.SHAJI, S/O.SREEDHARAN,VADAKKEDATH PERUMTHURUTHU MURI,THANNEERMUKKAM THEKKU VILLAGE. 688 527. 2. MINIMOL,W/O.SHAJI, VADAKKEDATH PERUMTHURUTHU MURI, THANNEERMUKKAM THEKKU VILLAGE-688 527. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21947 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.336 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha is aggrieved by Ext.P4, order refusing to appoint a survey commission to identify the suit property. O.S.No.336 of 2008 is a suit for injunction filed by petitioner against respondents on the claim that petitioner is in possession of the suit property and apprehending trespass by the respondents. Respondents however denied petitioner's title and possession of suit property and claimed that description of plaint schedule is made in such a way that it takes in a portion of property belonging to them. In view of that contention petitioner wanted a survey commission to inspect suit property and identify the same. That application was disallowed by Ext.P4, order. Learned Munsiff has observed that the suit is merely for injunction on the basis of possession and hence an enquiry into title is not required. Learned Munsiff has also referred to the report of Advocate Commissioner on record which according to the learned Munsiff is sufficient to identify the suit property. What is required for the petitioner is to prove her case of possession of property. It is in that circumstance that learned Munsiff has refused to appoint a survey commission. On hearing learned counsel and going through order under challenge I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order so far as plaint allegations stand now. If there is any change of circumstances by amendment of plaint or such other matters it is open to the WP(C) No.21947/2010 2 petitioner to move appropriate application before learned Munsiff and going by the way the present application is dismissed, Ext.P4, order would not stand in the way of learned Munsiff considering any fresh application on the changed circumstances. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks