IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22824 of 2010(O) -------------------------- CMA.46/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM IA 998/08 IN OS.207/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHANALAKSHMI, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. KARTHIAYANI AMMA, POOMANGALATH HOUSE, PADINJARE MURI,KARA,VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KOWMARI, W/O. SURENDRAN, AGED 68, KAVUNKALTHARA HOUSE, PADINJAREMURI KARA, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE FROM KAVUNKALTHARA HOUSE, IRUMPOOZHIKKARA MURI, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK - 682038. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22824 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Prayer in this Writ Petition is for a direction that trial court shall dispose of the suit untrammelled by the observations made by the appellate court while disposing of C.M.A.No.46 of 2008 on the merit of contentions urged by parties. Respondent/plaintiff sued petitioner for a declaration of right of way and for prohibitory injunction claiming that the disputed pathway has a width of four metres. Petitioner contended that there is no such way in existence as claimed by respondent. Learned Munsiff dismissed I.A.No.998 of 2008 filed by respondent/plaintiff for temporary injunction. Respondent challenged that order in C.M.A.No.46 of 2008. Appellate court allowed the C.M.Appeal, made some observations regarding the width of way which is in dispute in the suit and directed parties to maintain status quo as reported by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 series until disposal of suit. Learned counsel has invited my attention to some of observations made by the appellate court as regards width of the way which is in dispute. 2. Appellate court has directed parties to maintain status quo with regards to the disputed way as reported by Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 series. No modification of that part of order is warranted in this Writ Petition. Learned Munsiff, Vaikom shall dispose of O.S.No.207 of 2008 untrammelled by any observation made by learned Additional District Judge (Special), Kottayam WP(C) No.22824/2010 2 while disposing of C.M.A.No.46 of 2008 as regards merit of the contentions raised by parties. Both parties shall have opportunity to prove their contentions in the suit as provided under law. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.