JUDGMENT : The original petition is filed to set aside the order in I.A. No.1078/2018 in O.S. No.33/2015 (Exhibit P10) passed by the court of the Munsiff, Kayamkulam. 2. The petitioner, the plaintiff in the above suit, has sought a decree for recovery of the possession and fixation of boundary against the respondent – his younger brother. The petitioner, the respondent, their mother, and other siblings had executed partition deed No.1992/1988 of the Bharanikavu Sub Registry, partitioning their properties into three shares. After the death of their mother, the respondent encroached into a portion of the petitioner’s property. Despite the petitioner requesting the respondent to measure the property, he has not acceded. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to file Exhibit P1 suit. The respondent has resisted the suit by filing Exhibit P2 written statement. The petitioner has been relentlessly seeking for the old survey plan of the area. He has received Exhibit P3 information from the Central Survey Office that the old survey plan is unavailable. The petitioner has got the properties measured through the surveyor, with the aid of the re-survey plan and partition deed, and Exhibit P4 commission report was filed before the court below. After the conclusion of the trial and final hearing, the learned Munsiff, on a finding that Exhibit P4 commission report is not as per the old survey plan, by Exhibit P5 order has remitted the commission report. The petitioner has information from the Village Office, Taluk Survey Office and the Assistant Director of Re-survey Chegannur, as per Exhibits P6 to P6C, respectively, that the old survey plan is unavailable. During the interregnum, the petitioner had approached this Court for the expeditious disposal of the suit, which was allowed as per Exhibit P8 judgment. The period was further extended by Exhibit P9 order. The court below has, by the impugned order, directed the petitioner to make necessary amendments in I.A. No.867/2017 and the commissioner to prepare a report based on the old survey records. Exhibit P10 is untenable and unsustainable in law, particularly in the light of Exhibits P6 to P6C. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard, Sri. R. Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Asha Elizabeth Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The short point for consideration in the original petition is whether there is any illegality in Exhibit P10 order? 5. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard, Sri. R. Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Asha Elizabeth Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The short point for consideration in the original petition is whether there is any illegality in Exhibit P10 order? 5. Undisputedly, as per Exhibit P3 information furnished by the Central Survey Office, the old survey plan of the locality is not available. The Surveyor has measured and identified the plaint schedule property based on the resurvey plan and partition deed. After the conclusion of the final hearing, the court below has found that Exhibit P4 report is improper since it was based on the re-survey plan and not the old survey plan. 6. Smt. Asha Elizabeth Mathew, the learned Counsel for the respondent, argued that there is no illegality in Exhibit P10 because the respondent has already produced the old survey plan before the court below. So, the petitioner can very well amend the application and get the commissioner deputed to measure and identify the property based on the old survey plan produced by the respondent. 7. Sri. R. Rajasekharan Pillai vehemently countered the above submission by contending that the respondent has in paragraph 11 of the Exhibit P2 written statement in unequivocal terms admitted that the old survey plan is not available. Hence, the document now attempted to be pressed into service, without any corroboration, cannot be taken on its face value. 8. On a comprehensive consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, and the rival submissions, particularly Exhibits P3 and P6 to P6C information furnished by the statutory authorities, I find that the petitioner has established that the old survey plan is not available with the authorities; therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted for a moment. If the respondent had a case that he had the old survey plan in his possession, it was up to him to have got the document proved through the proper person, at the appropriate stage, and given an explanation regarding his admission in the written statement. He cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. 9. In the light of the information in Exhibits P3 and P6 to P6C, it is clearer than crystal that the old survey plan is not available. He cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. 9. In the light of the information in Exhibits P3 and P6 to P6C, it is clearer than crystal that the old survey plan is not available. Therefore, Exhibit P5 order remitting the commission report and Exhibit P10 order directing the petitioner to take steps to measure the property based on the old survey plan is unsustainable in law because the petitioner cannot be expected to do the impossible. The doctrine of impossibility comes into play. I reminiscence the Latin maxim “ Lex non cogit Ad impossibilia’ which means that law does not compel a man to do anything impossible. 10. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court has State of Uttar Pradesh V. Inhuman conditions at quarantine Centres and for providing better treatment to Corona positive (SLP (C) No.7147/2021] has broadened the scope of application of the ‘doctrine of impossibility’, which is traditionally invoked in the contractual regime, by observing that the doctrine is equally applicable to court orders. 11. In the above factual and legal background, I hold that Exhibit P10 order passed by the court below is unsustainable. The court below will have to decide the suit with the available materials on record. Hence, in exercise of the supervisory powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I allow the original petition in the following manner: (i) Exhibits P5 and P10 orders are set aside. (ii) The court below is directed to consider and dispose of O.S. No.33/2015 based on available pleadings and materials on record, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.