IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2587 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ IA. 3082/2011 IN CMA. 90/2011 OF THE IST ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. OS. 442/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. ......... PETITIONER -------------------- NEJUMUNNEESA, AGED 48, W/O.ARAKAL USMAN, PALUVAI DESOM, CHAVAKAD AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- RASAC, S/O. AHAMMED, PALUVAI DESOM, CHAVAKAD AMSOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK, PIN-680 506. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OP(C) NO.2587/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 442/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD DTD. 5.4.2011. P2:- COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER PRODUCED IN IA. 2096/2011 IN OS. 442/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNISFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD DTD. 23.5.2011. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA.2095/2011 IN OS. 442/2011 DTD. 7.7.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. P4:- COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN CMA.90/2011 IN OS. 442/2011 DTD. 12.7.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. P5:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK OFFICE DTD. 22.7.2010. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA. 3082/2011 IN CMA. 90/2011 DTD. 25.7.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IST ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2587 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 16th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.442 of 2011 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Chavakkad and the appellant in C.M.A.No.90 of 2011 of the Court of learned First Additional District Judge, Thrissur is the petitioner before me. The dispute is over plaint B schedule way which according to the petitioner passes through property of respondent and over which petitioner has got a public right. Respondent would deny existence of the said pathway or right as claimed by the petitioner. Learned Munsiff found that petitioner is not entitled to get any interim order of injunction. That order was challenged in C.M.A.No.90 of 2011. Learned First Additional District Judge refused to grant an interim order in the said appeal. The refusal to grant interim order is under challenge in this original petition. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued based on the report and sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner that plaint B schedule is in existence through the property of respondent. It is also contended that it is a public way. Learned counsel for respondent contended that in respect of the very O.P(C).No.2587 of 2011 -: 2 :- same matter, there were other proceeding either before the learned Munsiff, Chavakkad or before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur initiated at the instance of petitioner but, later withdrawn. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances it appears to me that the proper course is to direct the learned First Additional District Judge to dispose of C.M.A.No.90 of 2011 as early as possible. Resultantly this original petition is disposed of directing the learned First Additional District Judge, Thrissur to dispose of C.M.A.No.90 of 2011 as early as possible untrammelled by the observation if any contained in the impugned order. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-