IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20357 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1440/2009 IN OS.91/2007 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAJU J.VAYALAT,AGED 28,S/O.V.T.JOSEPH, VAYALATT HOUSE,FORT KOCHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE, MR.T.PRAVEEN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- ALIYAR,S/O.VADAKKEKUDY MEERAN, VADAKKEKUDY HOUSE,VALLAM KARA,RAYONPURAM, PIN 684 543,CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.SHAJI CHIRAYATH, SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20357/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT NO.91/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR A DECREE OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION DTD. 16/03/07. P2: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION WORK IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER I.A.NO.1440/09 DTD. 30/06/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20357 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To direct the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor to dispose Ext.P3 commission application as per I.a.No.1440/2009 in O.s.No.91/2007 within such time this Honourable Court deems fit to grant”. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.91/2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. Suit is one for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. Mandatory injunction was sought for to direct the defendant to vacate from the plaint schedule property within the time fixed by the court and prohibitory injunction to restrain him from committing any waste in the property or making any additional construction. Suit property comprising a building was purchased from the defendant, and on his request he was permitted to continue occupation in building for a short period, but, however later he refused to vacate from the building and made attempts to put up construction in the property, is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff for filing the suit for the aforementioned reliefs. The defendant on W.P.(C).No.20357 of 2009 - O 2 appearance filed a written statement resisting the suit claim contending among others that the property conveyed under the sale deed was different. An advocate commissioner appointed by the court conducted local inspection more than once, initially preparing for a report, and later, with the assistance of a surveyor filed for measuring the property. A report with plan, after measuring of the property was also filed. A status quo order passed by the court on the application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiff continues in force. Petitioner/plaintiff filed an application alleging that violating the order of status quo passed by the court, the respondent is making hasty preparations for putting up additional construction to the residential building. A commission application was also moved with the application to conduct a local inspection and to take note of the construction made and the activities going on. The learned Munsiff adjourned the application from time to time is the grievance espoused for filing this writ petition seeking issue of orders/directions to the court below to appoint an emergent commission to determine the matters sought for in the application. W.P.(C).No.20357 of 2009 - O 3 3. Notice being given, the respondent has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. A report from the court below was also called for to examine why the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff for appointment of an emergent commission was not disposed of. The report would indicate that on the request made by the respondent/defendant that application was posted for filing objections and hearing. 5. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented and especially the case canvassed by the petitioner/plaintiff that a status quo order already passed by the court has been violated and flouted by the defendant in putting up additional construction to the building, I find appointment of a commission as desired by the petitioner without delay is essential to advance the ends of justice. The court below is directed to pass appropriate orders without further delay, on the commission application moved by the plaintiff as I.A.No.1440/2009, on production of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the counsel on both sides. In case of any W.P.(C).No.20357 of 2009 - O 4 impediment whatsoever for the court below to take up the matter on the date of presentation of the copy of this judgment by the petitioner, the commission application shall be taken up for consideration with notice to both sides and disposed of within one week from the date of such production. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-