IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 CRP.No. 652 of 2010() --------------------- CMA.9/2010 of SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. VADACODE KANTAN SASTHA TEMPLE, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR VILLAGE. 2. VADACODE KANTAN SASTHA TEMPLE, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR VILLAGE, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY S.K.VENUDHARA PANICKER. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.M.K.ASWATHI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY , REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------- C.R.P.No.652 of 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011 ORDER The plaintiffs in O.S.No.123 of 2010 on the file of the court of the First Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. In the suit, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed I.A.No.738 of 2010 for a temporary injunction. The trial court, by the order dated 17th May, 2010 allowed the application and the respondent was restrained from making any further construction and committing waste in the plaint schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. 2. Challenging the order of the trial court, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.9 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Neyyattinkara. The lower appellate court allowed the C.M.Appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial court. The lower appellate court CRP 652/2010 2 further held thus : "However, before starting constructions the appellant will file an affidavit before the lower court undertaking that if the suit is decreed they will remove the constructions without claiming any right." The judgment of the appellate court is dated 8th October, 2010. 3. When the Civil Revision Petition came up for admission on 9.12.2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an interim order directing both parties to maintain the present condition of the property. 4. It is submitted that the suit is ripe for trial. The learned counsel appearing for both sides submitted that the suit may be directed to be disposed of at the earliest and both the parties may be directed to maintain the status quo. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed CRP 652/2010 3 of as follows: (i) The trial court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. (ii) Till the disposal of the suit, the status quo as on 9.12.2010 shall be maintained by both parties. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl