IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31252 of 2008(U) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2008 IN IA 1003/06 IN OS.204/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. JOHN JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, KARAKUNNEL HOUSE, ANAKKAPARA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. SAITAS.K.J, S/O.JOSEPH, KARAKUNNEL HOUSE, ANAKKAPARA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SABU THOZHUPPADAN SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KUNCHU, VAZHAKAKODU, KAVASSERY VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. LEELA ALIAS LEELAVATHI, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, VAZHAKAKODU, KAVASSERY VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MANGALAM IRRIGATION PROJECT, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31252 OF 2008(U) ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for petitioners. 2. Petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.204/2006 of Munsiff's Court, Alathur challenge Exhibit P8, order dated 26-7-2008 in I.A. No.1003/2006 appointing Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the properties and file revised report and plan. Learned Counsel contended that no dispute on title is involved and hence, there is no necessity to prepare a survey plan. Learned counsel also contended that attempt of the respondents is to create evidence in support of their untenable contentions. 3. It is seen from paragraph 3 of written statement that a contention is raised regarding the southern boundary of the schedule property. Further contention is that petitioners, by showing a wrong boundary on the southern side is attempting to grab the property of respondents 1 and 2 and that in between the property of the petitioners and the northern canal bund is W.P.(C) No.31252/2008 - 2 - the property of respondents 1 and 2. As per the impugned order, Advocate Commissioner has been directed to submit revised report and plan. It is also stated that petitioners/plaintiffs can file work memo to the Advocate Commissioner. If as claimed by the petitioners measurement is to be made as per old survey records also, it is open to them to file a work memo incorporating such a request also. More over, court below has taken care to direct the Advocate Commissioner to locate the schedule property on the basis of the title deed of the petitioners, as well. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the revised report and plan being submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, they have the opportunity to file their objection to that. There is no reason why, by exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court should interfere in the order under challenge. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE skr // True copy // P.A. to Judge.