IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 600 of 2010(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/10/2010 IN IA.828/2010 IN CMA.46/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------------ GOPINATHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, (CHIRAYIL), MARIYAPPALLY KARA, NATTAKAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENT: --------------- UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.LATE SIVASANKARAN NAIR, SANKARAMANGALATHU HOUSE, THADIYOOR MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.600 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT This petition is in challenge of Ext.P11, interim order passed by the learned District Judge, Pathanamthitta on I.A.No.828 of 2010 in C.M.A.No.46 of 2010. That C.M appeal arose at the instance of respondent in challenge of the order on I.A.No.1068 of 2008 in O.S.No.265 of 2008 of sub court, Pathanamthitta. Respondent wanted a declaration that the sale deed and rectification deed he executed are sham, were not intended to be acted upon, not binding on plaint schedule property and for consequential reliefs. In I.A.No.828 of 2010 he prayed for an order of prohibitory injunction to restrain petitioner trespassing into the suit property. According to the petitioner, he is the owner in possession of the suit property where he is about to construct a building when respondent filed the suit. Learned Sub Judge dismissed I.A.No.1068 of 2008 which is under challenge in C.M.A.No.46 of 2008. In that appeal respondent filed I.A.No.828 of 2010 for an order of injunction. It would appear from the order under challenge that when the application came up for hearing before the learned District Judge it was submitted on behalf of O.P(C).No.600 of 2010 : 2 : petitioner that objection is being filed on I.A.No.828 of 2010, respondent was ready to argue the matter but petitioner sought time for argument. Thereon learned District Judge directed parties to maintain status quo with reference to the lie and nature of property as on the date of Ext.P11, order. Petitioner challenges that order. Learned counsel states that petitioner wants to make improvements in the property and that the interim order may stand in the way of petitioner doing so. 2. Having regard to the circumstances stated and nature of the order passed by learned District Judge I do not consider that interference is required under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is open to the petitioner to request learned District Judge to dispose of C.M.Appeal as early as possible and if any request is made learned District Judge shall dispose of the C.M.appeal as expeditiously as possible. If learned District Judge for any reason finds it difficult to dispose of the appeal immediately, he may consider making over the case to any of the Additional District Courts at the station for early disposal of the C.M appeal. This petition is disposed of as above. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-