IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 2525 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN IA.2797/2009 IN CMA.27/2009 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM OS.37/2009 OF MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KUNCHUNNI NAIR @ P.V..K.UNNI NAIR, S/O KUNHUMALU NASSIAR, PARATHIKKATTU VEETHOTTURU NAIRU VEEDU, THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM, EZHUMANGAD DESOM, OTTAPALAM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. P.V. SUDHAKARANUNNI, S/O KRISHNANUNNI NAMBIAR, 'BHARATHI', THRITHALA AMSOM, NHAGATTIRI DESOM, OTTAPALAM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 2. P.V.KRISHNANUNNI @ OMANAKUTTAN, PUNCHALIL VEEDU,EZHUMANGAD, ARANGOTTUKARA P.O. THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM, EZHUMANGAD DESOM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 3. P.V.USHA, D/O BALAMANI, PUNCHALIL HOUSE, EZHUMANGAD, ARANGOTTUKARA P.O., THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM, EZHUMANGAD DESOM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 4. GIRISH, S/O PADMANABHANUNNI, THEKKETHIL HOUSE, THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM, EZHUMANGAD DESOM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 5. P.V.SANTHA NESSIAR, D/O KERALA VARMA, PUNCHALIL HOUSE, THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM, EZHUMANGAD DESOM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 6. GEETHA NESSIAR, PUNCHALIL HOUSE, THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM, EZHUMANGAD DESOM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 7. REMANI NESSIAR, D/O JANAKI NESSIAR, PUNCHALIL HOUSE, THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM. EZHUMANGAD DESOM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 8. LEELA NESSIAR, D/O RUMINI NESSIAR, PATHAYAPURAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM, EZHUMANGAD DESOM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 9. KRISHNANKUTTY @ NANI PERUMBRA NAIR, THEKKETHIL HOUSE, THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM, EZHUMANGAD DESOM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. 10. V.P. AYYAPPAN, S/O CHANGAN, VEETHOTTURPADI, KOORATH PARAMBU, THIRUMITTAKODE AMSOM, EZHUMANGAD DESOM, PALGHAT DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R9 SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD OTTAPALAM DATED 26.2.1982 IN C.C. NO.506 OF 1973. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.37 OF 2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATTAMBI DATED 13.2.2009. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.271 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.37 OF 2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATAMBI DATED 13.2.2009. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN I.A. NO.271 OF 2009 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PATTAMBI DATED 25.2.2009. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.271 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.37 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI DATED 29.2.2009. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.279 OF 2009 IN C.M.A. NO.27 OF 2009 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT DATED 12.1.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.2525 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext.P6, order modifying the ex parte interim order of injunction passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ottapalam on I.A. No.2797 of 2009 plaintiff has come up with this Writ Petition. He filed O.S. No.37 of 2009 in the court of learned Munsiff, Pattambi seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents from trespassing into plaint A schedule or renovating the Temple situated in plaint B schedule property which according to the petitioner/plaintiff formed part of plaint B schedule property. Petitioner filed I.A. No.271 of 2009 for temporary injunction but was not successful. Petitioner challenged Ext.P5, order dismissing I.A. No.171 of 2009 in C.M.A. No.27 of 2009 in the Sub Court, Ottapalam where petitioner got an ex parte interim order of injunction against commission of waste. That order was modified by the learned Sub Judge as per Ext.P6, order permitting respondents to continue with renovation of the Temple and re- installation of deities in plaint B schedule. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition granted stay of Ext.P6, order to the W.P(C) No.2525 of 2010 -: 2 :- extent it related to the modification. 2. It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondents and it is admitted by learned counsel for petitioner also that pursuant to Ext.P6, order respondents have renovated the Temple and re-installed the deities in the Temple. Petitioner has a contention that the said act was done by the respondents in violation of the order of stay granted by this Court. But learned counsel for respondents maintained that there is no disobeyance of the order of this Court. 3. Now that the act apprehended by the petitioner has already been done by the respondents, what is required is to direct the parties to maintain physical condition of plaint B schedule property as now available until disposal of the C.M. Appeal. Learned Sub Judge shall dispose of the C.M.A. untrammelled by any of the observation contained herein. With the above direction this Writ Petition is disposed of. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv