JASEENTHA Vs. ANNIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P5 orders passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Wadakkanchery, in E.P.No.25/2020 in O.S.No.340/2012, the plaintiff in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondents were the defendants in the suit.

(2.) The concise case of the petitioner, relevant for the determination of the original petition, is that, she had filed the suit against the respondents, for a decree for fixation of boundary and other consequential reliefs. The court below, by Ext.P1 judgment dtd. 31/3/2017, decreed the suit, directing the western boundary of plot-A shown in Ext.C1(a) plan, to be fixed as the western boundary of the plaint schedule property and restrained the respondents from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or obstructing the petitioner from protecting her western boundary. Ext.P1 judgment has become final. Now, the respondents have filed E.P.No.25/2020 before the court below, against the petitioner, to fence the eastern side of their property. Without going into the merits of the matter, the court below, by the impugned Ext.P3 order, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to be assisted by a Surveyor, and directed the boundary to be fixed. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner filed E.A.No.464/2022 (Ext.P4) to review Ext.P3 order. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P5 order, dismissed Ext.P4 application. Exts.P3 and P5 orders are erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

(3.) Heard; Sri. C. Chandrasekharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission.