IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 19001 OF 2010(O) -------------------------- I.A. NO.1335 OF 2009 IN OS.95/2007 OF SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. REJI RAJAN, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN, CHELACKAL HOUSE, PARAPPU KARA, AYYAPPANCOIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI. 2. MARIYAMMA, W/O. THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, PARAPPU KARA, AYYAPPANCOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU, PIN-685 603. 2. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 584. 3. JACOB ABRAHAM @ THANKACHAN, S/O. ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PADALUMKAL HOUSE, ALADY KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN-685 507. 4. VARGHESE, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PLATHARA HOUSE, ALADY KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN-685 507. 5. MARIYAMMA DEVASIA, W/O. LATE DEVASIA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, VETTUKUZHY HOUSE, ALADY KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN-685 507. 6. ANTONY DEVASIA, S/O. LATE DEVASIA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, VETTUKUZHY HOUSE, ALADY KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN-685 507. 7. ALICHEN DEVASIA, S/O. LATE DEVASIA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, VETTUKUZHY HOUSE, ALADY KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN-685 507. 8. SABU DEVASIA, S/O. LATE DEVASIA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VETTUKUZHY HOUSE, ALADY KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN-685 507. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.19001 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 18 th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners/plaintiffs challenge Ext.P4, order on I.A. No.1335 of 2009 in O.S. No.95 of 2007 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kattappana. Learned Sub Judge declined to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to identify plaint C schedule property with the assistance of a Surveyor by measuring the property with reference to the relevant survey records. 2. The suit is for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondent No.3/defendant No.3 from conducting quarrying operations in plaint C schedule in violation of law (as stated in the plaint). Petitioners claimed that plaint A schedule belonged to petitioner No.1 and her husband while plaint B schedule belonged to the husband of petitioner No.2. They stated that plaint A and B schedules have well defined boundaries and gave the boundary descriptions in the plaint. According to them plaint C schedule is the place where respondent No.3 is illegally carrying on quarrying operations. Respondent No.3 contended that so far as plaint C schedule is concerned the boundary descriptions given in the plaint are not correct and that plaint C schedule property is comprised in W.P(C) No.19001 of 2010 -: 2 :- Sy.No.342/5 and not in Sy.No.341/1 as stated in the pliant. It appears that petitioners were scared by the said contention and applied for the issue of an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor to identify plaint C schedule property with reference to the relevant survey records. Learned Sub Judge declined the prayer holding that it is not necessary to identify plaint C schedule in the nature of the relief prayed for. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners. Learned counsel has referred me to the contention of respondent No.3 in the written statement that boundary descriptions and survey number (of plaint C schedule) stated in the plaint are not correct. 4. True, it is so stated but there is no specific contention that boundaries of plaint schedules given in the plaint are not correct. What is stated is a only a vague contention. It appears from the written statement of respondent No.3 that his only contention as regards plaint C schedule is that it is comprised in Sy.No.342/5 and not in 341/1 as pleaded in the plaint. To me it appears that difference in the survey made no consequence since it is not disputed by respondent No.3 also that he is conducting quarrying operations in plaint C schedule. This is not a suit on title for identification of plaint C schedule with reference to the relevant survey records as requested by petitioners. If the survey number of C schedule stated in the plaint is not correct W.P(C) No.19001 of 2010 -: 3 :- according to respondent, that mistake if any in the plaint could be corrected by other methods if available to the petitioners. A survey of plaint C schedule is not required. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv