IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4427 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.386/2009 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KOCHUTHRESYA,AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.BABU ANTONY,NADAKKEPARAMBIL,CHETIKKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALY,ALAPPUZHA. 2. BABU ANTONY,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY,NADAKKEPARAMBIL,CHETTIKKADU MURI, PATHIRAPPALLY,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN SRI.K.C.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.S.PONNAMMA,AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH,MEDAYIL,KOMMADI WARD,THUMBOLY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. MANJU,AGED 21 YEARS,D/O.PONNAMMA, MEDAYIL,KOMMADI WARD,THUMBOLY,ALAPPUZHA. 3. SUNIL @ VARGHESE JAMES,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.JAMES,PALLICJATHAYYIL,CHERTHALA THEKKUMMURI, CHERTHALA VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P. (C ) No. 4427 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 10th February, 2010 JUDGMENT The defendants in O.S. 386 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha are the Writ Petitioners. The aforesaid suit instituted by the respondents 1 and 2 herein is for a declaration of the right of easement over the plaint D schedule pathway and for consequential injunction. As per Ext.P3 common order dated 13-10-2009, the trial court has restrained the Writ Petitioners from altering the nature, lie and alignment of the plaint D schedule pathway and from putting up any obstruction to the same till the disposal of the suit. 2. While the matter was thus pending, the petitioners filed I.A. 6428 of 2009 to allow them to construct a compound wall in their property. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs and the court below has dismissed the application as per Ext.P5 order mainly for the reason that the petitioners have not clearly indicated the exact alignment of the proposed W.P. (C ) No. 4427 of 2010 -:2:- compound wall and therefore if their request is allowed it may block the access to the plaintiffs from the plaint A schedule property through the plaint D schedule pathway. It is the said order which is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P5 order or stay the trial of the suit. It is made clear that notwithstanding Ext.P5 order the parties can be referred to Lokh Adalath to explore the possibility of a settlement of the dispute between them so that in case the settlement talks ripen into an award, that may probably pave the way for the petitioners to put up a boundary wall. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.