IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1630 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.195/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ KIDANGAZHI MANAKKAL NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRIPPAD, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, ERAMANGALAM P.O., CHATHANGOTTUPURAM, (VIA) WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KARUNAKARAN @ CHINNAN, S/O.SANKARA PANICKER, KOYATTASSERI HOUSE, P.O. CHTHANGOTTUPURAM, (VIA) WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R1 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 1630 of 2011(O) PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 195/2010 EXT.P2: COPY OF CONSENT DATED 2.3.2004 BY R & 37 OTHERS EXT.P3: COPY OF REPORT DTD.15.11.2002 BY THE HEAD SURVEYOR EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER REF.NO.G2 893/2002 EXT.P5: COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.3643/10 DTD.13.5.2010 EXT.P6: COPY OF DOCUMENT DTD.29.7.84 EXT.P7: COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD.16.1.1962 EXT.P8: COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD. 20.1.1965 EXT.P9: -DO- DTD.29.11.1966 EXT.P10:-DO- DTD.6.1.68 EXT.P11: -DO- DTD.26.11.68 EXT.P12: -DO- DTD. 29.12.69 EXT.P13: -DO- DTD.16.3.93 EXT.P14: -DO- DTD.26.3.94 EXT.P15: -DO- DTD.29.3.95 EXT.P16: -DO- DTD.11.3.96 EXT.P17: -DO- DTD.23.9.75 EXT.P18: -DO- DTD.2.3.82 EXT.P19:-DO-DTD.26.2.83 EXT.P20: -DO- DTD.13.5.2010 EXT.P21: COPY OF ORDER DTD.22.11.2010 IN I.A.NO.906/10, 1089/10 & 1580/10 EXT.P22: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.24.2.11 EXT.P23: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CMP NO.6/2011 BY THE DISTRICT COURT. RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C)No.1630 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Manjeri. The suit is for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and his men from entering into the plaint schedule property or destroying the board stating that it is a private way or from demolishing the gate or from obstructing the plaintiff exclusively possessing the plaint schedule property. I.A.No.906 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner for temporary injunction. It is stated that ad interim injunction was granted . Later the application for temporary injunction was considered along with I.A.No.1089 of 2010 filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A.No.1580 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Sub O.P(C)No.1630 OF 2011 2 Inspector of Police to render assistance to the petitioner to restore the gate. The aforesaid three applications were dismissed by the trial court by a detailed order dated 22nd November, 2010. 2. The petitioner filed CMA No.6 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Manjeri challenging the order in I.A.No.906 of 2010. In the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction. Alleging that the Lower Appellate Court did not pass any order in the application for temporary injunction, the petitioner filed OP (C) No.498 of 2011, which was disposed of as per Ext.P22 judgment dated 24th February, 2011. This court directed the District Court, Manjeri to hear and dispose of the petition for injunction filed by the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The District Court disposed of the C.M.Appeal itself by the judgment dated 19th February, 2011. O.P(C)No.1630 OF 2011 3 Paragraph 3 of the judgment reads as follows: “3. Learned counsel on both the sides submit that this appeal can be disposed of with a direction to the court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. After hearing both the sides and considering the matter, this court is also of the view that this appeal can be disposed of as prayed for by the learned counsel on both the sides. In the result, the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri is directed to dispose of O.S.No.195/2010 as expeditiously as possible. No costs. This appeal is disposed of as above.” 3. The petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “i) issue an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or destroying or demolishing the gate or board written 'private way' or from obstructing the plaintiff's possessing the plaint schedule property or maintaining the board and gate, pending disposal of O.S.195/10, Munsiff Court, Manjeri. ii) issue any other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. O.P(C)No.1630 OF 2011 4 And iii) to award costs of this O.P(C) to the petitioner.” 4. At best, the petitioner could challenge the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court in CMA No.6 of 2011. The petitioner is not entitled to relief No.(i) in the Writ Petition. As regards the judgment passed in CMA No.6 of 2011, the judgment shows that it was based on the submission made by the counsel appearing for both sides. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the statement made by the learned District Judge in the judgment, the remedy of the petitioner is to file a Review Petition. The petitioner has not filed any application for review of the judgment in CMA No.6 of 2011. The petitioner cannot challenge the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, which apparently was based on a consensus of the parties. For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is O.P(C)No.1630 OF 2011 5 dismissed, leaving open the rights of the petitioner to move the appropriate forum for appropriate reliefs. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms