IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3247 of 2010(O) ------------------------- CMA.27/2009 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA O.S. NO.373/2008 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJARAJESWARI AMMA, D/O.RAJAMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, MANI BHAVAN, AYOOR, EDAMULAKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR. ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SREEKALA, W/O.RAJESWARAN PILLAI, GEETHA SADANAM, CHUNDAMUKALIL, PERINGALLOOR, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SASI, S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, THACHUVEETTIL VEEDU, EDAYAKODU, CHADAYAMANGALAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 3247 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 373 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur is the writ petitioner. The said suit instituted by the 1st respondent herein against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein is one for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff from using the plaint B schedule pathway. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction and also an application for an emergent commission. Both the applications were allowed by the trial court. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1066 of 2009 alleging that the 1st defendant violated the order for temporary injunction by putting up a gate at the western extremity of the plaint B schedule strip of land and sought for an interim mandatory injunction. A Commission was taken out in the said application. The trial court, after hearing both sides, allowed I.A. No. 1066 of 2009 and directed the writ petitioner to restore the status quo as obtained on the date of execution of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner claims to have filed C.M.A. No. 27 of 2009 before the W.P.(C) No. 3247/2010 : 2 : Sub Court, Kottarakkara. In that C.M.A., he filed I.A. No. 1698 of 2009 for a stay of operation of the order in I.A. No. 1066 of 2009. The said application was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dated 23.12.209. Hence this writ petition. Even though the petitioner alone is responsible for the dismissal of the interim application filed in the C.M.A, by dismissing the said application, the C.M.A has virtually become infructuous. I, therefore, direct the Sub Court Kottarakkara to take up for consideration and dispose of C.M.A. No. 27 of 2009 itself finally after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard and untramelled by any observation and findings in the impugned order in I.A. No. 1698 of 2009. Until then, the order in I.A. No. 1066 of 2009 passed by the trial court shall not be implemented. However, the writ petitioner shall not cause any obstruction to the plaintiff in using the plaint B schedule strip of land including the gate put up thereon and the plaintiff's user thereof shall be subject to the final decision in the suit. Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 3247/2010 : 3 :