IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 494 of 2010(O) ------------------------ IA NOS.4047 & 4060/2010 OS.297/2004 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. DAVIS,AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKUNNY, ARIKKADAN HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. RAPPAI,ARIKKADAN HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANANDAM,W/O.PANAMPILLIKATTIL KUMARAN, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KUMARAN,S/O.KRISHNAN,PANAMPILLIKATTIL HOUSE,PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.494 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.297 of 2004 challenge of Exts.P3 and P4, orders on Exts.P1 and P2, applications passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakkuda. Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a Surveyor submitted report and plan. The case was posted on 10.11.1999 for objection to the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Going by orders under challenge it was represented on that day that there is no objection to the report and plan. The case was then posted for consideration of I.A.No.3615 of 2009 filed by the respondents for amendment of plaint and thereafter the case was posted on 16.11.2009, 23.11.2009, 25.11.2009, 04.12.2009, 16.12.2009 and 21.12.2009 on which day case was posted for trial in the list on 05.01.2010. The suit was dismissed for default on 05.01.2010 and restored on 27.09.2010. Then the case was posted for trial in the list. It is then that petitioners filed Exts.P1 and P2, applications to set aside report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and to receive objections to that report. Those applications were dismissed as belated. Learned counsel submitted that it was because the suit was dismissed for default and restored only on 27.09.2010 that Exts.P1 and P2, applications were not filed on time. But I stated that before dismissal of the suit there was representation that there is no objection to the report and plan. It is seen that inspite of granting several opportunities OP(C) No.494/2010 2 petitioners did not choose to file any objection to the report and plan and seek setting aside of the same. Applications at the fag end were not entertained. There is no reason to interfere. However I make it clear that if ultimately the suit is decided against the petitioners it will be open to them to challenge correctness of the impugned orders in the appeal if they are otherwise entitled to that course. “Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt (The laws assist those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.)” Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks