IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1042 of 2010(O) ------------------------- CMA.74/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD IA NO.983/2009 IN OS.64/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------ 1. ACHUTHANANDHAN, S/O. UNNIKKATTE SARADHAYAMMA, AGED 57 YEARS, SUDHARMMA HOUSE, NAYARTHARA, NENMMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TLAUK, PALAKKAD. 2. GEETHA W/O. ACHUTHANANDHAN, AGED 52, SUDHARMMA HOUSE, NAYARTHARA, NENMMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O. VISWANATHAN NAIR, AGED 66 YEARS, CHARCHATT HOUSE, NARARTHARA, NEMMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678508. ADV. SRI.MANUEL THOMAS THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, ALONG WITH OPC NO. 1043 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.1042/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.5.2009 IN IA NO.418/2009 AND IA 983/2009 IN OS 64/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 15.10.2010 IN CMA NO.74/2009 AND 75/2009 OF THE DISTRICT COURT PALAKKAD //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) Nos.1042 & 1043 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT These Original Petitions arise from the dismissal of C.M.A.Nos.74 and 75 of 2009 of the court of learned District Judge, Palakkad arising from Ext.P1, common order passed by the learned Munsiff, Chittur. Respondent was concerned about petitioners allegedly obstructing his right of access through plaint B schedule while petitioners were concerned with putting up a gate on the eastern extremity of plaint B schedule way lying east-west. Learned Munsiff allowed the application filed by the respondent while the request of petitioners to put up a gate was disallowed. That common order was confirmed by the learned District Judge in the C.M.Appeals. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that what was requested by petitioners was only to allow them to put up a gate on the eastern extremity of plaint B schedule way over which petitioners also have co- ownership right along with the respondent. It is contended by learned counsel that unless a gate is put up, the property of petitioners on the north of plaint B schedule cannot be protected. 3. Learned counsel for respondent however contended that petitioners have no right to put up any gate on the eastern extremity of the way as rightly found by the courts below. It is also contended that if any such gate is put up, OP(C)Nos.1042 & 1043/2010 2 that would amount to restriction of right of access to the respondent through plaint B schedule way to the plaint A schedule belonging to him. 4. Courts below have concurrently found that respondent is entitled to the injunction as prayed for and that petitioners cannot be permitted to put up any gate on the eastern extremity of plaint B schedule. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and gone through common order/judgment under challenge, I do not find reason to interfere with the common judgment of the learned District Judge or the common order passed by the learned Munsiff. 5. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners that the suit is ripe for trial and that the learned Munsiff may be directed to dispose of the suit untrammeled by the observations or findings in the common order/judgment or dismissal of these Original Petitions. Certainly the observations and findings about which petitioners are aggrieved must stand confined to the disposal of the applications filed by the respective parties. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit untrammeled by any such observations or findings of the courts below or the dismissal of these Original Petitions. With the above direction these Original Petitions are dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks