IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3590 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.8/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA ........................... .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------ LALITHA,AGED 46 YEARS,D/O.JANAKI, MELEKKATTUVEEDU, EDAKKADAM PO, PLAKKODU MURI,KAREEPRA VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------- LEELAMMA,AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI,SANTHOSH BHAVAN, THALAVOORKONAM MURI,KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU OP(C).No. 3590 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT IN IA NO.43/2011 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 23/9/2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3590 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.8 of 2011 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kottarakkara. Petitioner sought a decree for prohibitory injunction against the respondent trespassing into the suit property, removing articles allegedly belonging to the petitioner from the building situated thereon and interfering with possession of petitioner. On I.A. No.43 of 2011 learned Munsiff passed an ex parte interim order of injunction. Petitioner alleges that respondent, in violation of the said order trespassed into the property. Petitioner filed I.A. No.3473 of 2011 to direct the local police to implement Ext.P2, order (on I.A. No.43 of 2011). That application is posted along with the suit. In the meantime, respondent continues to violate Ext.P2, interim order of injunction, it is alleged. 2. Since Ext.P2, interim order was passed without hearing the respondent, question of its enforcement through police does not arise at this stage. Learned Munsiff has to dispose of I.A. No.43 of 2011 as provided under law and in case the final order O.P(C) No.3590 of 2011 -: 2 :- of injunction is violated, it is then open to the petitioner to request the learned Munsiff to enforce that order with the assistance of the police. 3. Learned Munsiff is directed to dispose of I.A. No.43 of 2011 if preliminary steps on that application are over, as provided under the law as early as possible. Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv