IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10566 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.95/2010 IN AS.65/2009 of SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PALAKKOTTU THEKKETHIL VEEDU, VENDAR MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. JAGANNATHA PILLAI,S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PALAKKOTTU THEKKETHIL VEEDU, VENDAR MURI,PUTHOOR VILLAGE, 3. RADHAMONY AMMA,W/O.JAGANNATHA PILLAI RESIDING AT PALAKKOTTU,THEKKETHIL VEEDU,VENDAR MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10566 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order whereby the court below modified the common order in I.A.779/09 and 1573/09 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.212/06 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara. The dispute relates to the boundary between the properties of plaintiff and defendants. It is alleged that the respondents wanted a declaration for 10 cents which exclusively belongs to them based on a will executed by their mother. The suit was decreed on 24.3.2010. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal as A.S.65/09 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. Along with the appeal Ext.P2 interim application was filed W.P.(c) No.10566/10 2 for injunction. Respondents also filed I.A. Both the petitions were heard together and Ext.P3 order of status quo was ordered by the court below. Petitioner filed Ext.P7 and P8 objections. While these petitions are pending it is alleged that the respondents filed I.A. 95/10 and moved the court below for hearing the same. It is stated that the petitioner is willing to have the appeal heard on merits. But the court below took up the interlocutory application and passed the impugned order. 3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that they were not heard on I.A.779/09 which is a petition filed by them. 4. Apart from the bold assertion, there is no merits in the contention. I.A.779/09, I.A.1573/09 and I.A.2219/09 were heard together. They were interlinked and interconnected and common order was passed. From the cause title of Ext.P11 order produced before this court, several I.As. were heard and a common order was passed. It is also made clear that any construction work done during W.P.(c) No.10566/10 3 the pedency of the case is subject to the result of the appeal. The conditions imposed by the impugned order sufficiently safeguard the interest of the petitioner. 5. No ground are made out to interfere with the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. This petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.