IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 446 of 2011() -------------------------------- I.A. NO.5020/2011 IN O.S. NO.477/2009 OF IST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. ..................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- JENIVAS, AGED 43, S/O.SUGUNANANDHAN, KOCHUCHALIL HOUSE, THANTHONNITHURUTHU, MULAVUKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.SARATHKUMAR, SRI.S. RAJ KUMAR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. VIMALA BHASKARAN, W/O.LATE BHASKARAN, 302, PRADAM APPARTMENTS, KONADPPA LAYOUT, KAGGADAPURA C.V. RAMANM NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 093. 2. AJU, S/O.BHASKARAN, 302, PRADAM APPARTMENTS, KONADPPA LAYOUT, KAGGADAPURA C.V. RAMANM NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 093. 3. ASHA MURALEEDHARAN, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN, PRADAM APPARTMENTS, LAYOUT, KAGGADAPURA, C.V. RAMANM NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 093. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.446 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011. ORDER Defendant in O.S.No.477 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff-II, Ernakuam is the petitioner before me, challenging the order dated 12.08.2011 on I.A.No.5020 of 2011. Respondents filed the suit for fixation of boundary and for prohibitory injunction. Petitioner claimed that he is a cultivating tenant of the suit property and in possession thereof. He also contended that pursuant to the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 16.08.1995, the Land Tribunal, Ernakulam initiated S.M.P.No.162 of 1995 in respect of the suit property. But, that proceeding was dismissed on 17.03.2009 against which petitioner preferred A.A.No.26 of 2009 which is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha. Petitioner contended that in view of pendency of the said proceeding, the suit is premature and not maintainable. Petitioner filed I.A.No.5020 of 2011 for an order to that effect. That application was resisted by the respondents. Learned Munsiff found that merely for the reason of pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) the suit cannot be said to be not maintainable and dismissed the application. Hence this civil revision. CRP No.446/2011 2 2. Learned counsel contends that there is a bar under Sec.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act against the civil court entertaining the suit. The said provision only bars the civil courts from deciding any question as to tenancy or kudikidappu which is otherwise required to be decided by the Land Tribunal. Respondents do not admit that petitioner is a cultivating tenant of the suit property. Respondents filed the suit for fixation of boundary and for prohibitory injunction claiming title and possession over the suit property. I am unable to say that the suit is not maintainable for the reason that a contention is raised by petitioner that he is the cultivating tenant of the suit property and that the appeal (A.A.No.26 of 2009 of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Alappuzha) against the order on S.M.P.No.162 of 1995 is pending decision. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Civil revision is dismissed. I.A.No.2319 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks