IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 694 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.21/2004 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.N.MATHEW, S/O.NINAN, AGED 62 YEARS, CHERAVALIL HOUSE, PERUMPATTY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NINAN, S/O.EASOW, CHERUVALIL HOUSE, PERUMPATTY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. PHILIP NINAN, ANU KOTTAGE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MARY EASOW, CHERAVALIL HOUSE, PERUMPATTY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.694 OF 2010 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in two suits which were jointly tried and dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla. Soon after dismissal of the suits, petitioner had approached this Court and filed the writ petition seeking the issue of a prohibitory order against the respondents/defendants. A direction was issued in that order to the learned Sub Judge to issue a copy of the judgment within the time limit fixed if the plaintiff had already applied for such copy. Petitioner was also directed to approach the court for seeking the other reliefs canvassed with respect to the prohibitory order sought for. The present writ petition is filed canvassing for an order or direction against the respondents to maintain statusquo till the appeal period is over as against the decree passed in the two suits and also to the court below to pass orders on the application moved for maintaining of such statusquo. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The WPC.694/10 2 application moved by the petitioner for maintaining statusquo till the appeal period is over, according to the counsel, is posted on 18.1.2010. Meanwhile, the respondents are taking hasty steps for cutting and removing the trees from the property, and thus, committing damages is the submission of the counsel. Petitioner can seek for appropriate relief from the court below inviting the circumstances at present for an early disposal of Ext.P3 application moved by him. The fact that Ext.P3 application has been posted on 18.1.2010 does not prevent the petitioner in moving for advancing the petition for an early disposal. I find no direction or order need be issued by this Court to the court below for disposal of Ext.P3 application. The other relief claimed by him, which was declined earlier in the previous writ petition, deserve to be taken note of only for its rejection. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.694/10 3