IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31222 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1701/2007 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAMSH,AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SANKU,KOOTTALA HOUSE,MOORKKANAD DESOM, PORATHISSERY,THRISSUR. 2. ANILAN,S/O.PUSHPAKARAN, KUTTASSERY HOUSE, MOORKKANAD DESOM, PORATHISSERY. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRABHAKARAN, SANKARATH VEETIL,MOORKKANAD DESOM, PORATHISSERY,THRISSUR. 2. SWARNAM @ SWARNAKUMARI AMMA, W/O.PRABHAKARAN,SANKARATH VEETIL, MOORKKANAD DESOM, PORATHISSERY,THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31222 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S No.1701 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. Suit is for declaration, fixation of boundary and injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. Suit was laid to restrain the defendant from encroaching upon 'B' schedule property which is stated to be a road vested with the panchayat. 'A' schedule is described as the property belonging to the defendant. As social workers, the plaintiff and others have planted some saplings beside the 'B' schedule panchayat road over which, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants have absolutely no right. Apprehending threat of trespass over 'B' schedule road, plaintiffs, two in number, petitioners herein, moved the above suit for injunction. The defendants resisted the suit claim by filing a written statement. Petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to identify the 'B' schedule pathway after fixing the southern boundary of 'A' schedule W.P.(C).No.31222 OF 2009 Page numbers property belonging to the defendant with the assistance of a surveyor, which was objected to by the defendants. After hearing both sides, the court below dismissed that application vide Ext.P4 order holding that necessary particulars for identification of the 'B' schedule pathway are not spelt out in the description of that property in the plaint. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order, the writ petition is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. From the submissions made and perusing the 'B' schedule description it appears that necessary particulars are not made out in the plaint for a proper identification of 'B' schedule and also in fixing the southern boundary of 'A' schedule property. Ext.P4 also reveal that another suit filed by the defendants as O.S No.268/2006 wherein the panchayat is made a defendant in which identical questions arise for adjudication is pending before the court. Panchayat has not been made a party in the present suit by the petitioners/plaintiffs is W.P.(C).No.31222 OF 2009 Page numbers another reason which prompted the court to dismiss the commission application. Considering the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, it appears that a joint trial of both the suits may be feasible. But I leave it to the court below to consider, after going through the pleadings in both the cases, whether such trial is essential, and needless to point out any decision for having a joint trial shall be ordered only after hearing the parties in both suits. Learned counsel appearing on both sides submit that joint trial of the two suits is feasible and more practicable. In case a joint trial of the two suits is ordered, the plaintiffs in the present case may move for a fresh commission for determination of the southern boundary of the 'A' schedule with 'B' schedule pathway. Ext.P4 order passed by the court will not stand in the way of the court if any such commission application is moved by the plaintiffs again and its disposal in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, //TRUE COPY// JUDGE vdv P.A TO JUDGE