IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 875 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- AS.12/2011 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA OS.627/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER -------------------- ABU, S/O. PUNNILATH KUNJU AMMU, ONACHAMMAVU DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.GOPI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SANKUNNI,S/O.PATTALI KUNJIPAPPU, ONACHAMMAVU DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 031. 2. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. PATALI KUNIPAPPU, ONACHAMMAVU DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 031. 3. ADBUL KHADER, S/O. PUNNILATHU KUNUMUHAMMED, ONACHAMMAVU DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 031. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.875/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 17.12.2010 IN OS. 627/2008 IN THE FILE OF THE MUNISFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR. P2:- COPY OF THE IA. 454/2011 IN AS. 12/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P3:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA. NO.454/2011 IN AS. 12/2011. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 25.2.2011 IN IA.454/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. ........................................... O.P(C).NO.875 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT The dispute between the parties relates to a pathway. Petitioner was the first defendant in O.S.No.627/2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur. Suffice to say that, that suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs took up the matter in appeal as A.S.No.12/2011 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The appellants also moved I.A.No.454/2011 seeking an interim relief. This Court is given to understand that after hearing both sides the interim order has been passed. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, it is conceded that the proper remedy is to file a revision and not a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner therefore prays that the original petition may be disposed of leaving open his right to approach appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of reserving liberty of the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if he is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order. . P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. cl