IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 39 of 2011(O) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2010 IN I.A.NO.831 OF 2010 AND I.A.NO.847 OF 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, THADIYOOR P.O., 689 545. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 39 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The respondent filed O.S.No.265 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, against the petitioner for a declaration that the sale deed and the rectification deed executed by the plaintiff are sham, that they were not intended to be acted upon and that the documents are not binding on the plaint schedule property. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1068 of 2008 for an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner/first defendant from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property and from creating any new documents. The trial court, by the order dated 13.8.2009 (Ext.P8), dismissed the application for temporary injunction. The respondent challenged that order in C.M.A.No.46 of 2010, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Pathanamthitta. The respondent alleged that the petitioner had cut and removed certain rubber trees. Learned District Judge passed an order of status quo in I.A.No.828 of 2010 filed by the respondent. The petitioner filed O.P.(C) No.600 of 2010 challenging the order of status quo. O.P.(C) No.600 of 2010 O.P.(C) NO.39 OF 2011 :: 2 :: was disposed of as per Ext.P12 judgment dated 8.11.2010, granting liberty to the petitioner to move the learned District Judge for the disposal of the C.M.Appeal itself. It was also noticed in the judgment that the petitioner could file objection in I.A.No.828 of 2010 and press for a hearing. 2. Thereafter, the learned District Judge passed Ext.P14 order dated 19.11.2010, disposing of I.A.Nos.831and 847 of 2010. (I.A.No.847 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner herein for modification of the order of status quo passed in I.A.No.831 of 2010). The operative portion of the order passed by the court below reads as follows: “1) Order to maintain status quo dated 19.10.2010 shall not affect the improvement made in the property but it will operate only against committal of waste in the property. 2) The improvements if any including replantation shall be at the risk and cost of the 1st defendant/respondent and shall be subject to the final decision of the suit. 3) The improvements including replantation shall be O.P.(C) NO.39 OF 2011 :: 3 :: carried on by the 1st defendant/respondent only after the inspection of the property by the commissioner ordered in IA No.831/2010 which is also being allowed along this IA. The same commissioner who had inspected the property first in the suit shall be deputed to assess the details mentioned in IA No.831/2010 quoted above. 4) The improvement and replantation if any shall be carried out by the 1st defendant/respondent under the supervision of the same commissioner appointed in the suit only and parties are at liberty to seek further direction in the matter from the appellate or trial court. Subject to this observations, the impugned order is modified and IA is disposed of accordingly.” 3. Ext.P14 order is under challenge in this Original Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by direction No.4 in the order impugned. 4. It was found that the petitioner cut and removed rubber trees standing on the disputed property, after filing the suit. According to the plaintiff, the rubber trees were yielding rubber trees. According to the petitioner/defendant, the rubber trees were cut for O.P.(C) NO.39 OF 2011 :: 4 :: the purpose of replanting. The interim order of status quo was modified by the court below and the petitioner was permitted to replant. However, this permission is with certain conditions. The petitioner could do the improvements under the supervision of the commissioner appointed by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner were to get the presence of the commissioner on all the days of work, he will be put to great prejudice and he will have to incur huge expenditure. In paragraph 4 of the operative portion of the order impugned, specific provision has been made that the parties are at liberty to seek further directions in the matter. If the petitioner wants any further direction in the matter, he can very well move the learned District Judge. The directions issued by the learned District Judge are not illegal or without jurisdiction. There is no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/