IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22374 of 2008(L) -------------------------- OS.726/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,KOTTAYAM DIST.COOP.BAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- SAIDKUTTY, JAINA MANZIL PANAYAKAZHIPPU, MUTTAMBALAM KOTTAYAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22374 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 order passed by Munsiff, Kottayam, in I.A.No.3638 of 2007 in O.S.No.726 of 2005. The suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction. Ext.P1 petition (I.A.No.3638 of 2007) was filed for appointment of a Commission to survey the disputed property according to the old survey plan and take measurements and fix location of the property of the petitioner on its existing boundaries. Petition was originally allowed on 13.12.2007. Subsequently, under Ext.P3 order, learned Munsiff reviewed the order and dismissed the application holding that it is not necessary to appoint a commission to identify the properties with reference to the old survey plan. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Munsiff should not have shut out the evidence and opportunity to the W.P.(C) No.22374 of 2008 2 petitioner-plaintiff to identify the property with reference to old survey plan should have been granted, and, therefore, Ext.P3 order is to be quashed. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through Ext.P3 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P3 order warranting interference. Learned Munsiff has specifically recorded in Ext.P3 that there is no case for the petitioner that there are mistakes in re-survey measurements. It was also stated that the petition does not disclose the reason for identifying the properties with reference to the old survey plan. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is entitled to challenge the order along with the judgment, if the judgment is against the petitioner. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.