Kottayam District Co-Op.Bank vs Saidkutty on 24 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22374 of 2008(L)



1. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OP.BANK
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. SAIDKUTTY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,KOTTAYAM DIST.COOP.BAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :24/07/2008

 O R D E R
                  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.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

learned counsel appearing for respondent were heard.

3. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned

Munsiff should not have shut out the evidence and opportunity to the

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.