IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24738 of 2008(T) -------------------------- OS.458/2001 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. P.T. SAMUEL, 60 YEARS, POOVATHUMOOTIL HOUSE, PULARIKKADU, PULLAD MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. SAMSON THOMAS, POOVATHUMOOTIL HOUSE, PULARIKKADU, PULLAD MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE. 3. BLESSON SAMUEL, POOVATHUMOOTIL HOUSE, PULARIKKADU, PULLAD MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. P. GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, PADINJATTATHILAYA PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLADU MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. P. RAJENDRAN, S/O. P.K. GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, PADINJATTATHILAYA PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLADU MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE. R1 & R2 BY MR.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.P.GOPAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24738/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.458/2001. P1(A): COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2308/2001. P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 21/02/06 IN CRP NO.2443/2001. P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 16/07/2007 IN W.P.NO.18448/06. P4: COPY OF I.A.NO.1157/2008 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. P5: COPY OF I.A.NO.1309/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. P5(A): COPY OF OBJECTION OF THE RESPONDENTS TO I.A.1309/2008. P6: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 25/07/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA IN I.A.NO.1157/2008 IN O.S.NO.458/2001. P7: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 25/07/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA IN I.A.NO.1309/2008 IN O.S.NO.458/2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.24738 OF 2008 (T) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to call for the entire records leading to Exts.P6 and P7 orders of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla and to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing he same. ii. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla to consider and allow Ext.P5 I.A.No.1309/2008 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.458 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. Suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction, and the respondents are the plaintiffs. Both sides moved application for appointment of a Commission detailing the points to be determined by the WPC.24738/08 2 Commissioner. The court below, after hearing both sides, allowed the application moved by the respondents/plaintiffs vide Ext.P6 order and dismissed the application moved by the petitioners/defendants vide Ext.P7 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P7 order dismissing the application moved by the petitioners/defendants for appointment of a Commission 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 counsel on both sides. After having heard the counsel on both sides at length, I find that the suit being one for perpetual prohibitory injunction, the entire burden is on the plaintiffs to establish their entitlement to the decree. The application moved by the defendants would show that they wanted to ascertain certain matters which do not arise for consideration or adjudication in the present suit. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the court below in dismissing the application moved by the petitioners/defendants. Ext.P7 order does not suffer from any WPC.24738/08 3 infirmity. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp