IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3114 of 2009(U) ------------------------- OS.768/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.OLIPARAMBIL DUDAMU, CHAPPARA DESAM, PULLUT VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR THALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT: --------------- VINAYAMOHANAN, S/O.ARAYAMPARAMBIL BALAKRISHNAN, ALA DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.3114 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.768/05 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kodungallur. It is submitted that the suit was filed for fixation of boundary and for injunction and that on 12/01/09 the petitioner filed I.A.90/09 before the trial court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property with the help of a Surveyor while the suit stood posted for trial in the special list on 14/01/09; and that the court below as per order dt.20/01/09 dismissed the said application holding that even though the petitioner had sufficient time he had not taken any step to have the property measured by a Surveyor and that there is negligence on the side of the petitioner to take steps to have the property measured though the main W. P. C. No.3114 of 2009 -2- prayer in the suit is for fixation of boundary and that now the suit stands posted for judgment to 31/01/09. What the petitioner wants is to have I.A.90/09 filed in the court below being allowed reversing the order of dismissal of the said I.A. vide Ext.P3 order dt.20/01/09. 2. It is seen that the suit was filed as early as in 2005. Even at the time of filing of the suit as observed by the court below the plaintiff and his lawyer was aware that for fixing the boundary of the scheduled property, property has to be measured and boundary has to be fixed and for the purpose a proper plan has to be got down. An application for the purpose of measuring out the property was filed only on 12/01/09 when the suit was in the list on 14/01/09 which shows that the petitioner and his counsel was culpably W. P. C. No.3114 of 2009 -3- negligent in the matter of prosecuting the case. There is no reason for this Court to interfere in the matter when the 11th hour also is over. 3. This Writ Petition is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-