IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 633 of 2008() --------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 2/4/2008 IN O.S.NO.155/07 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI) REVISION PETITIONERS:DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAVITHRI PRASAD, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.P.R.RAMALINGA MAHESWARA PRASAD, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTHU – 682 508, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK (REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 3RD REVISION PETITION TO APPEAR, ACT AND PLEAD ON HER BEHALF IN THE SUIT IN COURT BELOW). 2. P.R.RAMALINGA MAHESWARA PRASAD, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTHU- 682 508, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK (REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 3RD REVISION PETITION TO APPEAR, ACT AND PLEAD ON HIS BEHALF IN THE SUIT IN COURT BELOW) 3. BIJU PRASAD, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.P.R.RAMALINGA MAHESWARA PRASAD, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTHU – 682 508, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU PRASAD RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------------------------- 1. P.K. VASU, S/O.KOCHAPPAN, PULLUKATTUTHARA HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTHU – 682 508, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. ( D I E D). 2. VALLY, W/O.P.K.VASU, PULLUKATTUTHARA HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTHU – 682 508, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK (ALSO AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT) BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRP.No. 633 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 ORDER This petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order passed by Munsiff, Kochi holding that suit is not barred as claimed by the defendants. Third petitioner, who appeared in person, represented the other petitioners also on the strength of the power of attorney executed by them. 2. The case of petitioners is that learned Munsiff should have dismissed the suit as barred. The argument is that as directed by this court in WP(C) 4274 of 2008, learned Munsiff did not dismiss the petition and under Section 6 of Kerala Land Assignment Act, suit is not maintainable. It was also argued that suit should have even otherwise found not maintainable, as it is for fixation of the boundaries of the property obtained under Land Assignment order. 3. On hearing the party and going through the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. This court did not direct the learned Munsiff to dismiss the suit as canvassed by petitioners. What this court directed CRP 633/2008 2 was only to consider the objection with regard to want of jurisdiction and if it is to be found that court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit. There is no direction to dismiss the suit or a finding that court has no jurisdiction. The bar provided under Section 6 of Land Assignment Act is in respect of a suit against the government providing that no suit against government shall be entertained in any civil court in respect of any common order passed under Land Assignment Act. Suit is not against government and Section 6 has no application at all. Similarly, a suit for fixation of boundary is definitely maintainable before a civil court. Neither explicitly nor impliedly the suit is barred. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-