IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20056 of 2010(O) -------------------------- IA NO.331/2010 IN OS 464/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 68, S/O.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT C-44/950, KALOOR.P.O, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.PRABHAKARAN SRI T.V.ZIYAD. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- S.K.JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 58, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KUNJU VEEDU, T.C.V/2292, JAWAHAR NAGAR.P.O, NEAR KADAPATHALA LANE, PIPPINMOODU, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20056 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner, a senior citizen finding that there was obstruction to plaint B schedule way over which he claimed right of easement by prescription sued respondent for a declaration of his right and for prohibitory injunction, in O.S.No.464 of 2009. Learned Munsiff granted him an exparte interim order of prohibitory injunction on I.A.No.2314 of 2009 against causing obstruction in plaint B schedule which according to the learned counsel for petitioner remains in force even now. Grievance of the petitioner is that though the said order was served on the respondent on 08.03.2009 and the Advocate Commissioner inspected plaint B schedule the same day and submitted report, respondent in violation of the order of injunction caused obstruction to plaint B schedule which resulted in his filing I.A.No.5774 of 2009 for removal of obstruction. On his application Advocate Commissioner again visited the property and reported the obstruction. Learned Munsiff allowed I.A.No.5774 of 2009 directing respondent to remove the obstruction within one month from date of order failing which petitioner was permitted to remove the obstruction. Since respondent did not remove the obstruction petitioner vide I.A.No.331 of 2010 requested the court to depute an Amin to remove the obstruction. That application was allowed. Later, learned Munsiff as if in a review of order on I.A.No.5774 of 2009 directed that the gate which according to the petitioner was put up to obstruct his access through WP(C) No.20056/2010 2 plaint B schedule need not be removed before a detailed enquiry is conducted in that regard. Petitioner, aggrieved by that order filed W.P.(C) No.10795 of 2010 which this Court allowed as per judgment dated 08.04.2010 and the order directing that the gate need not be removed until enquiry is conducted was set aside. Respondent then filed Ext.P10, affidavit stating that all obstructions have been removed. Petitioner could not agree to that. On his complaint learned Munsiff passed Ext.P11, order deputing an Amin to execute the order on I.A.No.5774 of 2009 as upheld by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10795 of 2010. The Amin reported that he was obstructed (in his report). He filed Ext.P12, report seeking police aid and the assistance of an Advocate Commissioner. Court again deputed the Amin and Advocate Commissioner for removal of obstruction. Advocate Commissioner filed Ext.P13, report. Then came Ext.P14, order as per which learned Munsiff suo motu ordered examination of the Advocate Commissioner and posted the case on 29.06.2010. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. It is not clear from the order under challenge the purpose of examining Advocate Commissioner but, the order passed on I.A.No.5774 of 2009 as confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10795 of 2010 stands even now. Hence learned Munsiff is bound to comply with the said order if there is still any obstruction. Even after examination of Advocate Commissioner which appears to me to be for ascertaining whether any obstruction still exists in plaint B schedule, it is open to the petitioner to request learned Munsiff to direct compliance with the order on I.A.No.5774 of 2009 and remove obstruction if any WP(C) No.20056/2010 3 on plaint B schedule and/or challenge any order if adverse to the petitioner. In that situation it is not necessary for this Court to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. 3. Learned counsel requested that the court below may be directed to expedite the proceedings. It needs no mention that obstruction if any exists in plaint B schedule has to be removed as ordered at the earliest. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10795 of 2010 I direct the learned Munsiff to expedite the proceedings. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks