IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36123 of 2004(A) --------------------------------------- OS.1500/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT ,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SADANANDAN I.S. AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE A.K.SEKHARAN, IRIYAL HOUSE, EROOR, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.VARGHESE KURIAKOSE SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT: ---------------------- MOHANAN, AGED 56, S/O.PADMANABHAN, EROOR SOUTH, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN FOR RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.36123/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.8849/04 IN OS. NO.1500/02 OON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM DT. 18.10.2004. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.8849/0-4 IN OS. NO.1500/02 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM DT. 18.11.2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS DT. 9.3.2000. EXT.R1(b):- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(c):- COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT FILED BY THE COMMISSIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C). NO. 36123 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P2 order in I.A. 8849 of 2004 in O.S. 1500 of 2002 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent the defendant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Munsiff should have allowed Ext.P1 application directing the commissioner to measure the property belonging to the predecessor of the respondent and fix the property of the respondent and then only measure out and fix the plaint A schedule property. Suit is one for declaration of right of way by easement of prescription over plaint C schedule property. The right of way is claimed through plaint B schedule property of the respondent. In the nature of the reliefs sought for in the suit, it is not necessary to fix the boundary of the property of respondent. In such circumstances learned Munsiff WPC36123/04 2 rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order warranting interference. Writ petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-