IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2741 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [O.S.NO.39/2010 OF IST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- REMADEVI, W/O.P.K.GIREESH, VILAYIL VEEDU, MANVILA, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PARAMESWARAN KUTTY, KALIYOOTTU PARAMBIL VEEDU, THRIPPADAPURAM, ATTIPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121. 2. N.SURENDRAN NAIR, GANGA SADANAM, ATTIPRA, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121. 3. MANIYAN, PANNIKUTTY NILAM NIKATHU PURAYIDAM, KALIYOOTTU PARAMBU, ATTIPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121. 4. ANIL KUMAR, THUPOTTUKONATHU VEEDU, VILAYIL VILAKAM, NEAR S.N.LIBRARY PROPERTY, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 120. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.2741/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT AS O.S. NO.39/2010 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN EXT.P.1. PLAINT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN EXT.P.1. PLAINT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING I.A. NO. 1392/2011 IN O.S. 39/10. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING C.M.A. NO.30/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2741 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.39 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a suit for prohibitory injunction with respect to 22 cents in survey No.397/11 and 12. Petitioner and 1st plaintiff, her mother alleged that respondents owned property near to the suit property and claimed right of access through the northern boundary of the suit property. They therefore prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondent trespassing into the suit property. Respondents filed Ext.P2, written statement contending that there is a way along the northern side of the suit property. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the property as per the request of petitioner and 1st plaintiff and submitted a report. The same Advocate Commissioner again inspected the property on the request of respondents and submitted report and sketch. In Ext.P3, report the Advocate Commissioner who inspected the property on 21.07.2010 stated about a mud road extending east- west along northern side of the suit property and on the further west that way joining a public road. The Advocate Commissioner also reported that electric posts are installed along the said mud road. The total length of that mud road is reported to be 300 metres and its width, 3 ¼ metres. After that report, petitioner filed Ext.P4, application for a survey commission to identify the suit property. That application was dismissed by Ext.P5, order dated 23.02.2011. OP(C) No.2741/2011 2 Learned counsel contends that there was further trespass into the suit property after the first inspection and in the circumstances it is necessary to measure the suit property. 2. Learned Munsiff has observed that twice, the Advocate Commissioner submitted reports and sketches and that no objection was raised by petitioner to any of the reports and sketches. It is also pointed out that request for a survey commission, at the fag end is to delay the proceeding. 3. I must bear in mind further that the suit is merely for a prohibitory injunction. The disputed question regarding title is not required to be settled in a suit for injunction where petitioner has paid court fee under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks