IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3945 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- OS.NO.241/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER --------------------- KASU, S/O. PAZHANI, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOOMAMKATTIL, CHENGANIYUR AMSOM DESOM, MATHUR 1 VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- SAHADEVAN, S/O.KUNCHI, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOOMAMKATTIL, CHENGANIYUR AMSOM DESOM, MATHUR 1 VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 541. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.3945/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 21.11.2010 IN O.S.NO.241/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEM STATEMEMT DATED 13/6/11 IN O.S.241/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND ROUGH SKETCH DATED 22.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.1012/2011 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT I.A.NO.1012/2011. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1012/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.241 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Alathur aggrieved by Ext.P6, order refusing to remit the report for fresh inspection with the assistance of a Surveyor. 2. Respondent filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain petitioner and others from trespassing into the suit property - described as nine cents in survey No.738/16. Respondent claimed possession of the said property. It is further stated that the said property is well bounded by specific boundaries on all sides. Petitioner contends that the suit property takes in a portion of the property belonging to him and that immediately before visit of the Advocate Commissioner, respondent constructed a fence encroaching into the property of petitioner. The Advocate Commissioner submitted a report and sketch which according to the learned Munsiff revealed that the property over which respondent claimed possession is well bounded on all sides. Learned Munsiff also observed that the dispute is regarding northern boundary of the property where the Advocate Commissioner reported that there is in existence a fence. 3. Now the request is to remit the report and sketch to the Advocate Commissioner for a fresh measurement of the property with the assistance of a OP(C) No.3945/2011 2 Surveyor. Such an exercise is not required, for, being a suit for injunction the question is whether respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. I must bear in mind that petitioner has not claimed any relief in the suit. In that view of the matter I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks