JUDGMENT : (BASANT BALAJI, J.) This original petition is filed seeking the following reliefs : a) Call for records related to OS 92/2011 from the 2 nd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, b) To direct the trial Court to formally complete the process of impleading of Kumbalam Grama Panchayath as an additional party pursuant to Exhibit P-10 for proper adjudication of the case, c) To direct the Trial Court to pass orders to the effect that the Survey Commission is conducted with the participation of Respondent No:3/Additional Defendant No:3 and also Kumbalam Grama Panchayath, d) Direct the Trial Court to appoint another Private Surveyor to assist the advocate commissioner from the panel already submitted by the Counsel for Petitioners/Additional Plaintiffs in OS 92/2011 and to do physical survey of the properties as prayed for in the commission application, and e) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioners herein are the additional plaintiffs in O.S.No.92 of 2011 on the files of the 2 nd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed for declaration, fixation of boundary and injunction over the plaint ’C’ schedule property which is the balance extent leftover in ’A’ schedule property. The defendants had entered appearance and filed written statement contending that no part of the property belongs to C.P.Joseph, in Re-Survey block No.17, Re.Sy.No.48/21. The original plaintiff filed a commission application as I.A. No.818 of 2013 to conduct the measurement of the plaint schedule properties with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor based on the Title Deed of the plaintiffs and also upon old survey records. The commissioner filed a report. 3. The original plaintiff filed W.P.(C) No.12260 of 2011, for a direction to the revenue authorities to demarcate and provide separate sub-division Nos. to the property owned by C.P.Joseph. This Court, by judgment dated 12.04.2011, disposed of the writ petition directing the Taluk authorities to consider and pass orders on the complaint filed by the original plaintiff. Thereafter, the inspection was conducted, and the sketch was prepared. The defendants filed a review petition as R.P.No.200 of 2011, seeking the review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12260 of 2011. This Court, by judgment dated 12.04.2011, disposed of the writ petition directing the Taluk authorities to consider and pass orders on the complaint filed by the original plaintiff. Thereafter, the inspection was conducted, and the sketch was prepared. The defendants filed a review petition as R.P.No.200 of 2011, seeking the review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12260 of 2011. That R.P. was disposed of directing the Taluk Authorities to consider and pass orders in the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 13A of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act, within six weeks. Based on the report, the Additional Tahsildar (LR) closed the application and forwarded the file to sub-divide and effect mutation of the said 1.96 Ares mistakenly included in Re-survey Block No.17, Re.Sy.No.48/21 to the name of the original plaintiff and to make necessary changes in the revenue records. 4. In the meanwhile, the defendant filed a petition before the District Collector, praying for cancellation of the mutation effected in the name of the then-owner of the plaint ’B’ schedule property. As directed in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.4428 of 2016, the Deputy Collector(LR), conducted a hearing and directed the Additional Tahsildar to demarcate and to prepare a sketch of the property separately, showing the road as per records and now in existence. Thereafter, the Taluk authorities conducted the survey and filed a report. While so, in the suit, an application was filed as I.A.No.18 of 2024 by the plaintiffs seeking permission to implead additional 3 rd and 4 th defendants. The trial court allowed the impleadment of the additional 3 rd defendant and directed the plaintiff to issue notice to the secretary of Kumbalam Grama Panchayath and notice to the respondents. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that though the procedure contemplated under Section 249 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act 1994, to implead the additional 4 th defendant, the Kumbalam Grama Panchayath is complete, impleadment is not done. The 2 nd grievance of the counsel for the petitioners is that, though a Commissioner was appointed along with a Surveyor to survey the property, as per order in I.A.No.15 of 2023, it was allowed to remit the commission report and appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner, which was also allowed. The defendants filed O.P. before this court as O.P.(C) No.2691 of 2023, and this court dismissed the same. The defendants filed O.P. before this court as O.P.(C) No.2691 of 2023, and this court dismissed the same. Thereafter, a surveyor was appointed to assist the commissioner in surveying the property. The commissioner has filed a report, wherein he has stated that when he contacted the private surveyor Mr. Omanakkuttan, to conduct the inspection, he informed that he had undergone by-pass surgery and is taking complete rest, therefore he was not able to execute the work and sought time till June 2025, to do the work. This was reported to the court below. The petitioners pray that since the surveyor is undergoing rest after his surgery, a new surveyor may be appointed to help the commissioner to conduct the survey of the properties on the basis of the direction already issued. 6. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2, wherein it is contended that the petitioners did not take any steps for the measurement of the property and they intend to drag the proceedings by filing one petition after another. So, the respondents have filed a petition as I.A.No.21 of 2025, for a direction to the petitioners to execute the work of the commissioner within a time frame. Moreover, on the basis of the judgment of this court in W.P.(C) No.12260 of 2011, the Taluk Surveyor reported that there is no property situated at the spot in the name of the petitioners’ father as per the said title deeds. As stated earlier, the only relief sought in this original petition is for a direction to proceed to implead the Panchayath as an additional 4 th respondent and to direct the trial court to effect the survey after appointing a fresh surveyor to assess the commissioner. 7. A report was called for from the Sub Court, Ernakulam, and a report dated 18.03.2025 has been received, wherein, it is stated that I.A.Nos.18 and 19 of 2024 were heard together and orders were passed. On 10.02.2025, notice was already issued to the Secretary, Kumbalam Grama Panchayath. I.A.No.21 of 2025 is filed by the defendant to direct the Advocate Commissioner to measure the property at the earliest. The commissioner was directed to execute the work and file a report before 11.03.2025. On 11.03.2025, it was reported that the Taluk Surveyor was laid up due to by-pass surgery and he is not able to do the measurement. I.A.No.21 of 2025 is filed by the defendant to direct the Advocate Commissioner to measure the property at the earliest. The commissioner was directed to execute the work and file a report before 11.03.2025. On 11.03.2025, it was reported that the Taluk Surveyor was laid up due to by-pass surgery and he is not able to do the measurement. Because of the stay order passed by this court in this original petition, the matter is now stayed and posted to 21.03.2025. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this original petition as follows: i. If the steps are completed as per order dated 21.01.2025 in I.A.No.18 of 2024 (Ext.P10), the Kumbala Grama Panchayath shall be impleaded as additional 4 th defendant. ii. Since the Commissioner has already reported through an interim report that the Surveyor is not able to help him, the trial court shall appoint a private Surveyor from the panel already in the court and direct such Surveyor as well as the Commissioner to measure the property and submit a report. iii. Since the suit is of the year 2021, the trial court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. This Original Petition (C) is disposed of.