IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5303 of 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- (ORDER DTD. 30.1.2010 IN IA. 91/2010, IA.92/10 IN OS. 69/09 OF THE KANJIRAPALLY MUNSIFF COURT. ......... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. BABU,KOOLLAMKUNNEL, KANAM P.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. ANI,CHETTIYATHARA, KANAM P.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 3. LALU, PIRYANMACKAL,KANAM P.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM 4. SALEEN BEEVI, PANCHAYATH MEMBER, VAZHOOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ ST.MARY'S ORTHODOX CHURCH, KANAM P.O. KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 5303 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners challenge Ext.P3 order in I.A. Nos.90, 91 and 92 of 2010 in O.S. No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The respondent is the plaintiff. The suit is for prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing waste thereon. The suit was listed for trial. The petitioners filed three applications. I.A. No.90 of 2010 is filed for removing the case from the list, I.A. No. 91 of 2010 is for hearing the maintainability of the suit as the preliminary issue and I.A. No.92 of 2010 is for appointment of a Commission to ascertain the location of the disputed pathway. The court below dismissed all the three applications. 3. The petitioners prayed for appointment of a W.P.(C) No. 5303/10 2 Commission to ascertain the lie of the property. The court below after considering various aspects of the matter found that there was no need for appointing a Commission. The Court below noticed that though several opportunities were given to the petitioners for taking necessary steps, they did not avail those opportunities and at a highly belated stage, the present applications were filed. The court below observed that when the properties are lying within the jurisdiction of the two different courts, the party can file the suit in any one of the courts and as per section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court below is having jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no impropriety or illegality in the impugned order. However, it is made clear that the court below shall dispose of the suit based on the evidence adduced before it and untrammelled by any of the observations made by that court while disposing of those interlocutory applications. W.P.(C) No. 5303/10 3 This writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.