IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 961 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.662/2010 of ADDL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER:- ------------------- BIJU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.POOLAN VEETTIL THOMAS, POOCHUNNYPPADAM DESOM, CHOVOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. NICKSON, S/O.CHONEDATH XAVIER, PARAKKOTTUKARA DESOM, MURIYAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK-680 001. 2. PAULOSE, CHONNEKKAT, KOLENCHERRY DESOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 311. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = OP(C).No.961 of 2010-O. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in OS.No.662/2010 of the Court of Learned Addl.Munsiff, Irinjalakuda is the petitioner before me seeking a direction to issue an authenticated copy of judgment dated 27.11.2010 in CMA.No.22/1010 of that Court and, in the meantime to stay operation of the judgment in CMA.No.22/2010. According to the petitioner, building referred to in the suit property originally belonged to the mother of respondent No.1 and by successive assignment it came into the ownership of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 was permitted to reside in that building. Apprehension of petitioner is that claiming some right from the mother of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 is attempting to take possession of that building in violation of rental arrangement between petitioner and respondent OP(C).No.961/2010-O. 2 No.1. He, therefore, sought for a prohibitory injunction in that line. The Learned Munsiff passed an order of temporary injunction. On appeal, Learned Sub Judge reversed the finding of trial court, allowed the appeal and dismissed the application injunction. Petitioner says that he has applied for an authenticated copy of judgment in CMA.No.22/2010, it is not so far issued to him and in the meantime respondent No.2 is attempting to take possession and respondent No.1 is about to handover possession of the building to respondent No.2. Learned counsel submits that throughout in the trial court there was an order of injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from giving/taking possession of the building and that position continued even when the CM.Appeal was pending. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is still in possession of the building in question. 2. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel, I am inclined to issue the following directions: OP(C).No.961/2010-O. 3 (i) Learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda is directed to issue an authenticated copy of judgment dated 27.11.2010 in CMA.No.22/2010, as early as possible and at any rate, within two weeks from the date on which a copy of this judgment is received in that Court. (ii) Respondent No.1 is directed not to handover possession and, respondent No.2 is directed not to take possession of the building in the suit property till the expiry of seven days from the date notified for issue of authenticated copy of judgment in CMA.No.22/2010 to the petitioner. This petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, (Judge) Kvs/-