IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33733 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.554 OF 2009 IN OS.1095/2008 of SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. MR.JOSE, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PALATHINKAL HOUSE, VYTTILA DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. MR.JAMES, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PALATHINKAL HOUSE, VYTTILA DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.T.O.XAVIER, MR.JIMMY GEORGE (VATTATHARA), MR.CARLTON THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------- MRS. ALICE JOSEPH PANDIMAKEEL, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH GEORGE PADIMAKEEL, RESIDING AT PADIMAKEEL HOUSE, ELANJI PO, NOW RESIDING AT 29/655H, JANATHA ROAD, LANE-30, VYTTILLA, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33733 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S No.1095 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit is for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction and the respondent is the plaintiff. An application moved by the plaintiff for an interim mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove a fence was allowed by the court after hearing both sides vide Ext.P7 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the order challenged by the petitioner is amenable to an appeal as covered by Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the petitioner is having an alternative W.P.(C).No.33733 OF 2009 Page numbers efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned order the writ petition filed invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this court cannot be entertained. Reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal as provided by the statute, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv