IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21847 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1156/2010 IN OS.61/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------------- KUNHI MOHAMMED, S/O.KUNHI MOIDU, PULIKKAL HOUSE, S.S.ROAD, VENGARA AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: --------------- KUNHEETHU, S/O.MOHAMMED @ BAPPU HAJI, THACHARU PADIKKAL KOLAKKATHIL HOUSE, S.S.ROAD, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 21847 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 13th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs in O.S.No.61 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Parappanangadi is aggrieved regarding time granted by the learned Munsiff to the respondent to remove obstruction from the pathway. Petitioner sued the respondent for a decree for prohibitory injunction and there was an interim order of injunction. It is the case of petitioner that in violation of the said order there was obstruction caused to the said pathway. Thereon, petitioner filed I.A.No.1156 of 2010 for an order of mandatory injunction. That application was allowed but respondent was granted two months' time from date of order (30-06-2010) to remove the obstruction. According to the learned counsel school-going children and others are using the pathway which gets flooded due to the obstruction and hence the obstruction has to be removed at the earliest. Court below has accepted the prayer of petitioner to remove the obstruction. Grievance is that grant of two months' time is not the result of judicial exercise of discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The court below has exercised W.P.(C).No.21847 of 2010 : 2 : the discretion and granted time and unless it is perverse, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not warranted. If petitioner is aggrieved by the time granted it is open to him to seek review of the impugned order to that extent if it is otherwise permissible. Resultantly without prejudice to the right if any of petitioner to seek review of impugned order to the extent it concerned the time granted to the respondent for removal of the obstruction, writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-