IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16645 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEDHARAN PILLAI, PANDAVATHI VEEDU, THUVAYOOR VADAKKU MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADOOR. 2. JANAKI, KALEELIL PUTHEN VEEDU THUVAYOOR VADAKKU MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY GP SRI.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).16645/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 2nd respondent is a neighbouring property owner of the petitioner. She is running a Unit manufacturing wire cut bricks in her property. According to the petitioner, there is a separate pathway leading from the 2nd respondent's property to the public road. But apparently, she tried to cut open a new pathway to the petitioner's property. It seems that thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.469/2008 before the Munsiff Court, Adoor. An order of status quo was passed by the learned Munsiff, as evidenced by Ext.P4. Subsequently a notice was issued by the 1st respondent, RDO, with regard to the same dispute and Ext.P8 proceedings were then passed on 29.1.2009 inter alia requiring the parties to abide by the orders passed by the Civil Court. This writ petition has been filed on 15.6.2009 alleging that the RDO had no jurisdiction to pass any order, during the pendency of the proceedings regarding the same subject matter W.P.(C).16645/2009 2 before the Civil Court. 2. As a proposition of law, the contention of the petitioner that the RDO should have kept away when the matter is engaging the attention of the Civil Court, is impeccable. But I take note of the fact that the RDO has not purportedly passed any order inconsistent with the order passed by the Civil Court. RDO has only directed the parties to abide by the orders of the Civil Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sreekumar, submits that the 2nd respondent was not in a position to take vehicles through any portion of the plaint schedule property, to the Unit where she was manufacturing wire cut bricks, on the date on which the Civil Court had passed an order. But later making a false claim that she was taking vehicles to the Unit in question for the last several years, she has moved the RDO. In effect, therefore, the order of status quo passed by the Civil Court is permitted to be flouted by the RDO, it is contended. W.P.(C).16645/2009 3 4. Ext.P8 order only requires the parties to abide by the orders of the Civil Court. I would nevertheless have called upon the respondents to defend Ext.P8, had there been a challenge mounted against Ext.P8 within a reasonable time after the order was passed. Taking note of the fact that the RDO has only affirmed the binding nature of the orders of the Civil Court on the parties in question, and taking note of the fact that the Civil Court has actually passed an order of status quo, I am of the view that interests of justice would be met if the Munsiff Court is directed to pass final orders in I.A.2103/2008 in O.S.469/2008. This the learned Munsiff, Adoor, shall do within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner and the 2nd respondent will obviously be bound by the orders passed by the Civil Court. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs