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. 2740 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA.4053/2007 IN CMA.42/2007 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA OS.1293/2007 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA (IA.2487/2007) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ ROSSY, AGED 61, W/O. LATE SUNNY, KARALATHUKARAN HOUSE, PUTHUKKAD DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O. JOSE, MANIYAKKU HOUSE, PUTHUKKAD DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SAJU, S/O. ANTU, OOLUKKARAN, PUTHUKKAD DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. STANLEY, S/O. SUNNY, KARALATHUKARAN HOUSE, PUTHUKKAD DESOM, THORAVU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.2740 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of January 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Addl.Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda in I.A.No.4053 of 2007 in C.M.A.No.42 of 2007. C.M. A is preferred against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakkuda in I.A.No.2487 of 2007 in O.S.No.1293 of 2007. In the present application, the prayer is to the effect that if the plaintiffs are permitted to construct a compound wall in the defendants' property, it will cause great loss to them. It appears that the learned Sub Judge noted that “a portion of the construction of the retaining wall on the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property was already over. The remaining work is only extension to the height of the retaining wall. Hence that construction will never cause a loss to the defendants”. The learned counsel would submit that this statement is an incorrect statement and therefore it requires interference and status quo has to be ordered till at least C.M.A is heard and disposed of by the court below. There is some force in the said submission. Therefore, I direct the court below to dispose of C.M.A.No.42 of WP(C) 2740/2008 -:2:- 2007 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and in the meanwhile if the petitioner herein moves for the issuance of a Commission or remission of the Commission, as the case may be, the court below shall direct the Commissioner to report about the present state of the property and then direct both parties to retain status quo till C.M.A is disposed of. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-