IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 29571 of 2005(U) -------------------------- OS.714/1993 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ JOSE KURIAN, AGED 45 YEARS, MADANTHARA HOUSE, THUMBOORMUZHI, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR, NOW RESIDING AT KARIVANNOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- P.J. TARSHIS, S/O. P.C. JOSEPH, NADUVILEMURIYIL, PUPPALLIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT THUMBOORMUZHI DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN SRI.B.JAYASANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSING RIGHT DOCUMENT DATED 18.10.85 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 28.2.90 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 18.6.1990 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 448/93 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 35215 OF 2003 DATED 9.1.2004 EXT.P6 STRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF TALUK SURVEY. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A. 4219 OF 2004 AND 4220 OF 2004 DATED 31.3.2005 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO. 905 OF 2005 DATED 31.3.2005 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OS NO 714 OF 1993 DATED 31.3.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 29571 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 whereunder the Sub Judge has closed a suit filed by the petitioner in compliance with the direction in Ext.P5 judgment issued by this Court. The dispute between the petitioner and defendant pertains to boundary in respect of the land assigned to them by the Government. This Court vide Ext.P5 judgment issued necessary directions to the revenue authorities to demarcate the boundaries and give sketch to both the parties. Since the direction contained in the judgment was sufficient to close the suit, this Court directed the civil court to close the suit if no other issues survive. However, petitioner filed an amendment petition to enlarge the scope of the suit only to circumvent the direction contained in the judgment. The learned Sub Judge rightly observed so and closed the suit. I find no ground to interfere with Ext.P9 order passed by the Sub Judge. W.P. is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner has any grievance against the sketch furnished pursuant to the direction of this 2 Court, petitioner is free to challenge the same before the statutory authority. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3