IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 28910 of 2007(N) -------------------------- RFA.183/2003 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA EP 55/06 IN OS.278/1991 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ VISWANATHAN PILLAI, E.G.VIHAR, UMMANNOOR MURI, UMMANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. BHANUMATHY AMMA, PUTHANVILA VEEDU, CHERUVALLOOR MURI, UMMANNOOR VILLAGE. 2. S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, PUTHANVILA VEEDU, CHERUVALLOOR MURI, UMMANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 28910/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF DECREE DT. 30.10.03 IN OS 278 OF 1991 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P2. COPY OF IA NO.1434 OF 2003 AND THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID APPLICATION EXT.P3. COPY OF ORDER DT. 18.11.03 IN IA NO. 1434 OF 2003 IN RFA NO.183 OF 2003 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P4. COPY OF ORDER DT. 4.10.05 IN EP NO.129 OF 2004 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.3.06 IN IA NO.88 OF 2006 IN AS NO.183 OF 2003 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P6. COPY OF EP NO.55 OF 2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P7. COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN EP NO.55 OF 2006 EXT.P8. COPY OF ORDER DT. 16.8.07 IN EP NO.55 OF 2006 /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 28910 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Kottarakara in EP 55/06 in OS 278/91. The said application was filed by the decree holder to execute the decree passed on 30.10.03. There is no dispute that an appeal is preferred against the said judgment and decree and it is pending before the appellate court as RFA 183/03. In the said RFA, the appellants therein, namely the respondents herein, moved an application to restrain the plaintiff and his men by an order of temporary injunction from further trespassing into the plaint B schedule property and from new construction in it or from altering or disturbing the boundaries or cultivation of the appellant’s property, till the final disposal of this appeal. On the said application the learned Subordinate Judge, Kottarakara passed an order of status quo “ WPC NO 28910/07 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that the status quo order does not prevent an execution of the decree as there is no stay of execution of the decree. At the first blush it appears to be a very persuasive argument. But, when a matter is pending before the appellate court and that is an order directing the parties to maintain status quo, if execution of the decree is permitted to be simultaneously done then certainly there will be overlapping, which will create confusion in the minds of all. Therefore, if there is any grievance for the writ petitioner, his appropriate remedy is to get a clarification of the status quo order or request the appellate court to pass orders making clear what is to be maintained as status quo as per the order. If such an order is passed, and if there is any violation of the order or prevention of enjoyment of certain benefits given under that order, then certainly even the said court can interfere to put the things in order. Learned Munsiff found that since there is an order of status quo it may not be correct to execute the decree. 3. Learned counsel had relied upon the decision of the Apex court reported in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.[2005 (1) SCC 705] wherein it is made clear that mere filing of an appeal is not sufficient to forestall the execution of a decree. WPC NO 28910/07 3 But here though clearly an order of stay is not passed by the court below it has passed an order which may have bearing on the executability of the decree. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the learned Munsiff for rejecting the prayer. But at the same time I make it clear that the present writ petitioner can approach the appellate court for redressal of his grievance, if there is any violation of the status quo order caused by the other side. Petitioner can also request that court to make it clear what is the status quo it has ordered to maintain so that the parties will be specifically bound by such directions in the case. Ordinarily when a decree is granted, that decree perceives that what was the state of affairs on the date of institution of the suit. Therefore a larger meaning has to be given and if any restriction is made in the decree granted by the court below that also has to be made clear by the appellate court. Since the suit is of the year 1991 though the appeal is of the year 2004, the learned Subordinate Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal before the court closes for summer holidays. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 28910/07 4