IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 1844 of 2011(O) -------------------------------- OS.92/2011 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS ----------------- 1. SASIKALA, D/O.THEKKEKOYIKKAL VEERASENA SHETTY, RESIDING AT 'VINAYAK', CC XXXII/1297, NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, VADUTHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682023. 2. P.P.VISHNUDAS, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.VISHNU SHETTY PURUSHOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT 'VINAYAK', CC XXXII/1297, NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, VADUTHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682023. BY ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- C.P.JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.PERU, CHEMBAKASSERY, CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN - 682506. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.JOLLY JOHN SMT.S.SHIBHA THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(C). NO. 1844/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.92/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. P2: COPY OF I.A.790/2011 IN OS NO.92/2011 BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P1 PLAINT. P3: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN DEFENSE TO EXHIBIT P2 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION. P4: COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 07/02/2011 FILED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE COURT BELOW IN IA 789/2011 IN OS 92/2011. P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO EXHIBIT P4 COMMISSION REPORT. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2011 PASSED IN IA 790/2011 IN OS NO.92/2011. P7: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.4472406 DATED 27/05/2010. P8: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BDY THE TALUK SURVEYOR AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.SI 4537/2009 DATED 11/11/2009. P9: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 12 (2) OF THE KERALA COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1959 NUMBERED AS I.A. 1540/2011 IN O.A. 92/2011. P10: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.515 (2) DATED 06/03/2010 BY SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI. P11: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO I.A. 1540/2011 IN O.S. NO.92/2011 ON 26/03/2011. P12: COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN I.A.NO.1541/2011 IN O.S.NO.92/2011. P13: OPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO EXHIBIT P12 VALUATION STATEMENT. P13(a):COPY OF RELAVENT PAGES OF BASIC TAX REGISTER PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P13. svs ...........2/-... ...2... WPC.NO.1844/2011 P14: COPY OF I.A. NO.1541/2011 IN O.S.NO.92/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO DECIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. P15: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO EXHIBIT P14 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION. P16: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18/05/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.S. NO.92/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1844 OF 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.92 of 2011 of the court of learned III Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam. That is a suit filed by the respondent for a declaration of title and other reliefs over the schedule items. According to the respondent, plaint C schedule is part of plaint A schedule which he purchased as per assignment deed No.789 of 1980. Plaint B schedule is the portion which respondent claimed to have sold from out of plaint A schedule. Petitioners challenged maintainability of the suit on various grounds and also its (alleged) improper valuation. Petitioners filed Ext.P9, application under Section 12(2) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for determination of the market value of property and Ext.P14, application challenging maintainability of the suit on the ground that it is hit by Section 14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. Grievance of petitioners is that Exts.P9 and P14, applications have not so far been disposed of. 2. Without understanding the volume of work of the court concerned, it is not proper to issue any direction for time bound disposal. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to request learned III Additional Sub Judge to dispose of Exts.P9 and P14 (if it is not already disposed of) as early as possible and if any such request is made learned III Additional Sub Judge shall OP(C) No.1844/2011 2 consider the same and take appropriate steps in the matter. With the above direction this Original Petition is disposed of. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks