In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Munsiff's order dismissing an application to appoint a commission to survey disputed property. The high court found no illegality or irregularity in impugned order and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition challenging the impugned order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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.
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.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court should interfere with the Munsiff's order dismissing an application to appoint a commission for survey.
Whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting judicial review under Article 226.
Kottayam District Co-operative Bank
Saidkutty
M. Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
