IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37253 of 2008(I) -------------------------- OS.1180/2008 of ADDL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------------- MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. CHERTHEDATH VEETIL VASUDEVA MALLAN MALA DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. RETNAKARA BHAT VAIDYAN, MUTHURUTHY PARAMBIL MALA DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 2. SACHIDANANDA MALLAN, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN MALLAN CERTHEDATH VEETIL, MALA DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 3. P.R.BHAT, S/O. PADMANABHA VADHYAR MULANTHURUTHY PARAMBIL , MALA DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 4. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. VENKITESWARA MALLAN, CHERTHEDATH VEETIL, MALA DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 37253 OF 2008 I ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th December,2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.1180/2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit is filed for fixation of eastern and southern boundaries of the schedule property. In view of the nature of the suit a commission should have been taken out sufficiently early with the assistance of a surveyor to measure out the properties and fix the boundaries. However he did not do so at the appropriate time. He filed an application Ext.P1 only on 1.11.2008. The court below vide Ext.P2 order allowed the commission application but on condition of payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is burdened heavily by the court below by imposing a huge amount as cost which he is unable to pay and consequently that may result even in dismissal of his suit. It is true that the petitioner/plaintiff did not do the needful in his case at the appropriate time and the court below was fully justified in ordering cost in the circumstances of the case. But all the same while awarding cost to the other party from the petitioner, the court has to fix the amount in a just and reasonable manner and the amount of cost shall not be exorbitant so as to render a party unable to comply with the order which may entail his loosing his case as well. 3. In the above view I modify and reduce the cost ordered by the WPC 37253/08 2 court below to Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). This order is being passed without notice to the respondents with a view to expedite the trial of the case and also in view of the fact that ordering cost is in the discretion of the court for which it is not necessary that the opposite side is to be heard. 4. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment in the court below before closing of courts for Christmas holidays, with notice to the counsel for the respondents in the court below as this writ petition is being disposed of without notice to them, with a view to enable the court below to take appropriate action pursuant to the impugned order at the earliest. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Issue copy of this judgment to the counsel for the petitioner urgently. K.P.BALACHANDRAN Judge jj WPC 37253/08 3 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: