IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 OP(C).NO. 22 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------ OS.294/2009 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT/IST DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------------- PATHROSE, S/O.PAILY, CHIRATHALACKAL HOUSE, ENCHIYANI KARA, ALAKODE VILLAGE, ANCHIRY.P.O.-685 585, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.JOSEPH JOHN SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------ 1. AUGUSTHY, S/O.PAILY, CHIRATHALACKEL HOUSE, ENCHIYANI KARA, ALAKODE VILLAGE, ANCHIRY.P.O., THODUPUZHA-685585. 2. RAJU, S/O.KUNJU, THEKKUMPEROOR, ENCHIYANI KARA, ALAKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685585. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.22 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.294 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thodupuzha is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P5, order on I.A. No.1314 of 2010. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed the suit for fixation of boundary of his property and filed I.A. No.1314 of 2010 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to identify the suit property with the assistance of a Surveyor and reference to the old survey records. That application was opposed by petitioner contending that even as per the request of respondent No.1 there was identification of the property based on re-survey records which has become final and Notification was issued under Section 13 of the Survey and Boundaries Act. Hence measurement of the property with reference to old survey records is not necessary and the intention of respondent is to protract the proceeding. What is required is to measure the property with reference to the old survey records. Learned Munsiff as per Ext.P5, order directed Advocate Commissioner to measure the property with reference to the re- O.P(C) No.22 of 2010 -: 2 :- survey records also (as requested by petitioner). Objection of petitioner is that measurement of property based on old survey records is not possible and attempt of respondent No.1 is to protract the case. 2. It is for the Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether measurement with reference to the old survey records is possible or not. There is no reason why it should be held either way at this stage. Respondent No.1 wanted measurement of the property with reference to old survey records. Petitioner wanted measurement with reference to the re-survey. Learned Munsiff has directed measurement with reference to the re-survey records as well. In that situation there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P5, order. Original Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv