IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3114 of 2009(U)
1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.OLIPARAMBIL DUDAMU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VINAYAMOHANAN, S/O.ARAYAMPARAMBIL
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.RAJESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :29/01/2009
O R D E R
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/-