IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17423 of 2009(O) ----------------------------------- OS.127/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT,THODUPUZHA ............................................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/2ND DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------------ BABY @ AUGUSTINE, S/O. A.THOMAS, AGED 48 YRS, PURAVAKKATTU HOUSE, THUNDANGANADUKARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.DIVYA C.MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1-5/DEFENDANTS 1&3-10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FRANCIS, S/O. PUNNOOSE, AGED 59 YEARS, MANNAPURATHU HOUSE, THUDANGANADUKARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. MATHEW, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. FRANCHU, MANNAPURATHU HOUSE, THUDANGANADUKARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 3. PHILIP JOHN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. JOHN, MANNAPURATHU HOUSE, THUDANGANADUKARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 4. C.J.JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, THUDANGANADUKARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA TALUK. 5. ELSAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH, MULLORAKATHU HOUSE, THUDANGANADUKARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 6. JOSEPH THOMAS @ THANKACHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, PURAVAKKATTU HOUSE, THUDANGANADUKARA,MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. WP(C) NO. 17423/2009 (O) 7. ANEES BABY, W/O. BABY, AGED 50 YEARS, MOOKAN THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MELUKAVU KARA, THUDANGANADUKARA,MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 8. ELSAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH, PURAVAKKATTU HOUSE, THUDANGANADUKARA,MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 9. THOMAS THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, VETTATHU HOUSE, THUDANGANADUKARA,MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 10. MERCY THOMAS, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS, THUDANGANADUKARA,MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 11. SUNNY AUGUSTINE, S/O. AUGUSTINE, AGED 44 YEARS, KATTAKAYATH HOUSE, NELLAPPARA KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 12. K.A.JOY, S/O. AUGUSTINE, AGED 46 YEARS, KATTAKAYATH HOUSE, NELLAPPARA KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 13. REJI MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, MULLAKKIRAYIL HOUSE, KARIMKUNNAM KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 14. TOMY, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, MULLAKKIRAYIL HOUSE, KARIMKUNNAM KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17423 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To set aside Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha and allow Ext.P5 application I.A.NO.569/2009 in O.S.NO.127/2009 in its file”. 2. Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.NO.127/2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha. Suit was one for damages. Plaintiffs, 5 in number, instituted the suit alleging that the blasting operations of rocks nearby their properties comprising residential buildings is a threat to their life and property and they have, further, sustained damages and irreparable injury. A commission application moved by the plaintiffs to ascertain the matters required for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit was allowed by the learned Munsiff. The second defendant /respondent also moved an application for ascertaining some other matters also by the commission to substantiate his contention that blasting operations do not cause W.P.(C).No.17423 of 2009 - O 2 any damages to the plaintiffs or nearby residents. Both the commission applications were allowed by the court. The petitioner, admittedly, did not pay the batta to be paid to the commissioner within the time stipulated by the court. After the time so fixed, he moved yet another application requesting for appointment of a commission to have a survey measurement of the properties also. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application. Ext.P6 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness and propriety or that order, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Having heard the learned counsel at length and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the materials produced in the case, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff that no survey measurement is required for adjudicating the issues arising in the suit. The suit is seen filed as early as in 2000. It is seen, even preliminary steps, collection of evidence through an W.P.(C).No.17423 of 2009 - O 3 advocate commission is not over. It is submitted that the injunction order permitting the petitioner/second defendant to carry out the blasting operation in accordance with law is in force. Threat/apprehension raised by the plaintiff in the nature of relief sought by them in the suit, it is evidenced, still continues. On the facts and circumstances presented, I find, what is required is, an expeditious disposal of the suit. The learned Munsiff is directed to give appropriate direction to the commissioner to submit the report, after local inspection, at the earliest to facilitate a speedy trial. The challenge against Ext.P6 is devoid of any merit. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-