IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4274 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 2172/2007 IN OS.155/2007 of PRL.M.C., KOCHI .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SAVITHRI PRASAD, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.P.R.RAMALINGA MAHESWARA PRASAD, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH,ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK (REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 3RD PETITIONER TO APPEAR ACT AND PLEAD ON HER BEHALF IN THE SUIT IN COURT BELOW). 2. P.R.RAMALINGA MAHESWARA, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,OCHANTHURUTH, ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK (REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 3RD PETITIONER TO APPEAR ACT AND PLEAD ON HER BEHALF IN THE SUIT IN COURT BELOW). 3. BIJU PRASAD, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.P.R.RAMALINGA MAHESWARA PRASAD, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH, ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY SRI.BIJU PRASAD (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. P.K.VASU, S/O.KOCHAPPAN, PULLUKATTUTHARA HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH-682 508, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 2. VALLY, W/O.P.K.VASU, PULLUKATTUTHARA HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH-682 508, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 4274 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by party-in-person, i.e., Sri. Biju Prasad. The challenge is against the order of issuance of a Commission. The suit is one for fixation of boundary and ordinarily it is a must to have a Commissioner's plan and report. But the party-in-person submits before me that the Court has raised an issue regarding jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain it and it is framed as issue No.5. When the very competency of the Court is challenged in written statement and the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court is in question I feel necessarily the Court has to adjudicate that issue under Order 14 Rule 2(2) and if it is found that the Court has no jurisdiction then any attempt done thereafter or before will be only an attempt in futility. Therefore I direct the Court below to keep the order passed in I.A.2172/07 in O.S.155/07 in abeyance without implementation and in the W.P.C 4274 OF 2008 -:2:- meanwhile to hear the question of jurisdiction and if the Court finds that the civil Court has got jurisdiction then to direct the Commissioner to carry out the work otherwise the suit has to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-