IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 363 of 2010(O) ------------------------ AS.89/2009 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL OS.244/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- RAJENDRAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, CHAVADIMUKKU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ROJI GOPAL, SIVARAJA BHAVAN, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. - 685203. 2. K.G.SATHYANANDAN, POOVANTHURUTHI VEEDU, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, KADAKKAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. - 685 002. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.363 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the appellant in A.S. No.89 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Attingal. That appeal arises from a judgment and decree for fixation of boundary in O.S.No.244 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Varkala. According to the petitioner, judgment and decree granting fixation of boundary in favour of respondent No.1 are unsustainable since evidence on record would show that there was no such property as claimed by respondent No.1, available at the spot since Ext.B2, sale deed marked in the courts below in favour of petitioner and his mother though concerned 31 cents, actual extent at spot was only 27 cent. It is the complaint of learned counsel that in spite of petitioner filing Ext.P2, application for stay of operation of the decree respondent No.1 has been getting the application adjourned for some reason or other and in the meantime he has transferred the disputed property in favour of respondent No.2. According to the learned counsel, since there is no stay of operation of the decree respondents are taking steps to put up a boundary at their own instance which will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. Learned counsel therefore seeks a direction to the learned Sub Judge to dispose of Ext.P2, application at the earliest and in the meantime direct parties to maintain the present condition O.P(C) No.363 of 2010 2 of the property. 2. It is seen from the records that petitioner has already preferred appeal challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.244 of 2007 and moved Ext.P2, application for stay of operation of the decree. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel and since Ext.P2, application is pending consideration of the learned Sub Judge I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing learned Sub Judge, Attingal to dispose of Ext.P2, application (in A.S.No.89 of 2009) for stay of operation of the decree in O.S.No.244 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Varkala at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime it is directed that operation of the decree in O.S.No.244 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Varkala regarding fixation of boundary will stand in abeyance during the said period of three weeks. Learned Sub Judge may dispose of Ext.P2, application on its merit untrammelled by this judgment. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks