IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3284 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.250/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE KUTTY.C.K, KOLLAZHIKATH CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARIMBINPUZHA.P.O, PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, FROM CHAMAVILA VEEDU, PERINGALOORKARA, AYOOR.P.O, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. G.P.SHINOD MR. RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. SOSAMMA KUNJANDI, W/O.KUNJANDI, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, PERINGALOORKARA, AYOOR.P.O, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MARIAMMA THOMAS, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, PERINGALOORKARA, AYOOR.P.O, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. JOHNKUTTY, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, PERINGALOORKARA, AYOOR.P.O, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THRESIYAMMA, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, PERINGALOORKARA, AYOOR.P.O, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C) No. 3284/2010 : 2 : 5. RAKSON, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, PERINGALOORKARA, AYOOR.P.O, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. TEENA RAJAN, CHAMAVILA VEEDU, PERINGALOORKARA, AYOOR.P.O, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 3284 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S. No. 250 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur is the writ petitioner. The said suit filed by his mother and the legal representatives of a deceased brother is for fixation of the boundary in respect of 55 cents of land covered by a settlement deed and a Will of the year 1990 said to have been executed by the father. The father was the owner in possession of 1.05 acres from which he had settled 50 cents in favour of the petitioner in the year 1985. With regard to the balance extent, the plaintiffs claimed the above settlements as well as the Will of the year 1990. The plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1533 of 2009 to take out a survey commission. The petitioner herein did not file any objection to the said application which was allowed as per Ext.P4 order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 objection to I.A. No. 1533 of 2009 along with an W.P.(C) No. 3284/2010 : 2 : application to receive the same. In the said objection, he had prayed for a direction to the Commission to consider three matters during the inspection. Since Ext.P6 application was not entertained by the court, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 112 of 2010 to review Ext.P4 order. The said application has been dismissed as per Ext.P8 order dated 18.01.2010. Hence this writ petition. 2. Since the application for survey commission was allowed without any objection by the petitioner, he was not entitled to file a belated objection to the same, particularly when the suit itself is for fixation of boundary for which a survey commission is absolutely necessary. However, the petitioner in his belated objection had three requests to be made while the commissioner would be inspecting the property. Those requests could be ordered to be considered by the Commissioner at the time of his inspection. Hence, even though I am not inclined to interfere with Exts.P4 and P8 orders, it is made clear that the petitioner can produce a W.P.(C) No. 3284/2010 : 3 : work memo before the Commissioner at the time of his inspection and the Commissioner can consider the requests made in the work memo so far as they are relevant to controversy in question. Reserving this right, this writ petition is dismissed. Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 3284/2010 : 4 :