IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3696 of 2011(O) -------------------------------- OS.153/2007 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR ............................................................................... PETITIONER ---------------- DR.P.P.PATHROSE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE, PARATHUVAYALIL, KEEZHILLAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS ----------------- 1. DR.WILSON PAUL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE, PARTHUVAYALIL, KEEZHILLAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-683 541. 2. DR.NEETHU WILSON, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.DR.WILSON PAUL, PARTHUVAYALIL, KEEZHILLAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-683 541. 3. ELDHO M.JACOB, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MUTHUKATTU GEORGE, CHENGALA PUTHENPURAYIL, KEEZHILLAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-683 541. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dlk OP(C).No. 3696 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 153 OF 2007 ON THE FILES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT,PERUMBAVOOR. EXT. P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 130 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. EXT. P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN DATED 03.11.2006 FILED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO. 3578 OF 2006 IN O.S. NO. 471 OF 2006 ON THE FILES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR (RENUMBERED AS O.S. NO. 153 OF 2007 ON THE FILES OF THE AUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, PERMBAVOOR) EXT. P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN DATED 21.06.2007 FILED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO. 387 OF 2007 IN O.S. NO. 153 OF 2007 ON THE FILES OF TH SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. EXT. P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF I.A. NO. 1413 OF 2011 FILED BY TH PETITIONER IN O.S. NO. 153 OF 2007 ON THE FILES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. EXT. P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, KURUPPUMPADY. EXT. P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, KURUPPAMPADY. EXT. P8 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTATE COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. EXT. P9 : PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DAMAGES. EXT. P10 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 267 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3696 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 15th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.153 of 2007 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Perumbavoor seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to maintain status quo and permission to reconstruct the effluent plant allegedly destroyed by respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner, it is said, was running an Ayurvedic Hospital and effluent treatment plant in plaint A schedule. Petitioner claimed title and possession of plaint A and B schedules as per exchange deed No.6327 of 1983. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.130 of 2008 for a declaration that the sale deed executed by petitioner to the third respondent is not valid. O.S.No.153 of 2007 was dismissed and O.S.No.130 of 2008 was decreed. According to the petitioner, throughout pendancy of O.S.No.153 of 2007 there was an order of injunction against respondents 1 and 2 and immediately after dismissal of the suit petitioner filed I.A.No.1413 of 2011 to direct respondents 1 and 2 maintain status quo regarding plaint A and B schedules. First respondent, trespassing into plaint A schedule damaged the pipes leading to the effluent treatment plant. There was a further trespass on 03.11.2011 using J.C.B and the effluent O.P(C).No.3696 of 2011 -: 2 :- treatment plant was destroyed. Hence this original petition seeking relief as above stated. Learned counsel submitted that though an application was filed to advance hearing of I.A.No.1413 of 2011 that also was not allowed and now, I.A.No.1413 of 2011 is heard and taken up for orders. 2. It is for the trial court to consider whether the request for direction to maintain status quo has to be granted or not, having regard to the facts and circumstances emerging in the case. Even according to the petitioner, some mischief is already said to be committed by the first respondent. Since the matter is pending before learned Sub Judge, it is not necessary for this Court to interfere and direct status quo to be maintained. Nor could there be a permission for reconstruction of the effluent plant in this proceeding. That is a matter which petitioner has to urge before the appropriate Court. 3. In the above view of the matter, relief sought for in this original petition cannot be granted. Learned Sub Judge is directed to issue copy of the judgment and decree in the cases if applied for by the petitioner, as early as possible giving it top priority. With the above direction this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-