IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 30892 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OS.156/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MUTTATHUKATTIL KURAIN, S/O PAILY, AGED 63 YEARS, KUTTAPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.C.JAMES, MR.GEORGE MECHERIL. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THOTTAPPALLIL DEVASIA, S/O GEORGE, KUTTAPARAMBA P.O., KUTTAPARAMBA P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. CHELAKKAMAKKAL KATHREENA, W/O JOSEPH, AGED 34 YEARS, KUTTAPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS. MR.V.A.SATHEESH, MR.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI. R2 BY ADV.MR.J.S.AJITHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30892/2008 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.156/2008 OF THE VACATION COURT OF (DISTRICT JUDGE), THALASSERY. P2: COPY OF STATUS QUO ORDER DTD. 22/04/2008 IN I.A.NO.624/08 IN O.S.156/2008. P3: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT NO.1 IN O.S.156/2008. P3(A): COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF D1. P4: COPY OF AGREEMENT DTD. 27/07/2005 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND DEFENDANT. P5: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF D2. P6: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 24/06/2008 OF D2. P7: COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2925/06. P8: COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A.623/2008. P9: COPY OF I.A.NO.1603/08 IN O.S.156/2008 FOR REMITTING PETITION. P10: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 23/09/2008 BY COMMISSIONER FOR INSPECTION. P11: COPY OF VIOLATION PETITION I.A.2399/2008 IN O.S.156/08. P12: COPY OF I.A.2551/08 IN O.S.156/08. P13: COPY OF COUNTER IN I.A.2551/08. P14: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.2551/08 IN O.S.156/08 DTD. 3/10/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THALIPARAMBA. P15: COPY OF STAY PETITION I.A.2551/08 DTD. 3/10/2008. P16: COPY OF COUNTER IN STAY PETITION DTD. 14/10/2008. P17: COPY OF NOTICE OF COMMISSIONER DTD. 16/10/2008. P18: COPY OF I.A.NO.2761/08 DTD. 18/10/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30892 of 2008 - C --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of prohibition or such other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the Tahaliparamba Munsiff Court from directing the demolition of the New Iron Gate erected in the property of the petitioner comprised in Sy.No.17/1A of Alakode Village covered by title deed No.806/2001. ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction calling up the records and proceedings leading up to Exts.P18 and quash Ext.P14 order dated 3.10.2008 of Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba. iii) To issue an interim order directing the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba not to pass any order directing the demolition of the Iron Gate till the final disposal of O.S.No.156/2008, pending on the files of the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba. 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.156 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba. First respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant in the suit. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from blocking a private road leading to the plaint W.P.(C).No.30892 of 2008 - C 2 schedule property. With the suit, plaintiff filed an application for interim injunction and the trial court passed Ext.P2 ordering both parties to maintain status quo. Violating that order the defendant put up a gate blocking the road, was the case of the plaintiff to move an application for interim mandatory injunction against the defendants for removal of the gate. An advocate commissioner appointed by the court conducted a local inspection and filed a report. The Trial Court after hearing both sides allowed the application for interim injunction which was confirmed in the appeal filed by the defendants. Concurrent finding entered by the two courts below on the mandatory injunction so granted is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant submitted that at the time of admitting the writ petition it was undertaken that the defendants would not close the gate till the disposal of the suit after trial of merits and that state of affairs which still prevail may be allowed to continue till disposal of the suit. It is further submitted by the counsel that no blockage will be caused to the plaintiff in having access to their property through the W.P.(C).No.30892 of 2008 - C 3 pathway until the disputes are resolved in the suit after full fledged trial. Submissions so made are recorded. In the circumstances, I find an early disposal of the suit giving a quietus to the whole controversy is the need of the hour. So much so, I direct the learned Munsiff to complete the pretrial steps and dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, of course, after providing reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case any obstruction is caused to the enjoyment of the pathway for ingress and aggress to the plaint property by the acts or omission of the defendants, I make it clear it will be open to the respondent/plaintiff to press for an early hearing of the interim application for injunction which is stated to be still pending for consideration and the court below under such circumstances dispose it on merits. Subject to the above observations, writ petition is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-