IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 645 of 2011(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2010 IN IA.1089/2010 IN OS.383/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- RAJU DAVIS, S/O.DAVIS, ADVOCATE, AGED 51, PERAPPADAN HOUSE, MALA.P.O. AND DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.B.PRADEEP MS.N.G.SINDHU RESPONDENT: --------------- VARGHESE, S/O.SANI, AGED 75, PERAPPADAN HOUSE, MALA.P.O. AND DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R1 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 645 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: APPLICATION DATED 3.7.2010 (I.A.NO.1089/2010) IN O.S.NO.383/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKKUDY. EXT.P2: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND PLAN DATED 28.8.2008. EXT.P3: ORDER DATED 15.12.2010 IN I.A.NO.1089/2010 IN O.S.NO.383/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKKUDY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ...... // TRUE COPY // P.A.TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ O.P.(C).No.645 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The plaintiff in O.S.No.383/2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chalakkudy, is the petitioner. Suit was filed for fixation of northern boundary of the plaint schedule property and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The very same plaintiff filed O.S.No.629/2009 for fixation of southern boundary of the plaint schedule property and for permanent prohibitory injunction and the same is pending. 2. Ext.P3 order is under challenge. Ext.P3 order was passed in I.A.No.1089/2010 in O.S.No.383/2009. The said I.A was filed by the plaintiff for appointing an advocate commissioner to measure the plaint schedule properties, defendant's properties as per the title deeds and survey records and produce the survey sketch showing the nature, lie and boundaries of the same. The very purpose of filing the application is to appoint an advocate commissioner with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor to measure the plaint schedule properties, defendant's properties as per the ::2:: O.P.(C).No.645 Of 2011 title deeds and survey records to fix the boundary separating the plaint schedule properties and the defendant's properties. 3. The advocate commissioner deputed earlier filed a report and rough plan on 19.9.2008. The commissioner reported that there is a well established boundary on the northern side of the plaint schedule property. The main prayer in the suit is for fixation of boundary on the northern side of the property. Since there is a well defined boundary on the northern boundary, the learned Munsiff held that there is no necessity to conduct a commission to fix the boundary. The fact as to whether there is a well defined boundary on the northern side of the plaint schedule property is a matter to be examined by the court during trial, after considering the earlier report. In case it is found that thee is no well defined northern boundary as reported by the commissioner in the earlier report, the learned Munsiff is free to depute a commissioner with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor for ascertaining the northern boundary. In view of the earlier reports stating that there is a well defined boundary, the learned Munsiff is justified in dismissing the I.A. No grounds are made ::3:: O.P.(C).No.645 Of 2011 out for interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-