IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 633 of 2008()
1. SAVITHRI PRASAD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.K.VASU
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU PRASAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :18/08/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRP.No. 633 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2008
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure challenging the order passed by Munsiff, Kochi
holding that suit is not barred as claimed by the defendants.
Third petitioner, who appeared in person, represented the other
petitioners also on the strength of the power of attorney
executed by them.
2. The case of petitioners is that learned Munsiff should
have dismissed the suit as barred. The argument is that as
directed by this court in WP(C) 4274 of 2008, learned Munsiff
did not dismiss the petition and under Section 6 of Kerala Land
Assignment Act, suit is not maintainable. It was also argued that
suit should have even otherwise found not maintainable, as it is
for fixation of the boundaries of the property obtained under
Land Assignment order.
3. On hearing the party and going through the impugned
order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order. This court did not direct the learned Munsiff to dismiss
the suit as canvassed by petitioners. What this court directed
CRP 633/2008 2
was only to consider the objection with regard to want of
jurisdiction and if it is to be found that court has no jurisdiction
to dismiss the suit. There is no direction to dismiss the suit or a
finding that court has no jurisdiction. The bar provided under
Section 6 of Land Assignment Act is in respect of a suit against
the government providing that no suit against government shall
be entertained in any civil court in respect of any common order
passed under Land Assignment Act. Suit is not against
government and Section 6 has no application at all. Similarly, a
suit for fixation of boundary is definitely maintainable before a
civil court. Neither explicitly nor impliedly the suit is barred.
There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.
Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-