IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 FAO.No. 390 of 2010() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/11/2010 IN IA 5703/2010 IN AS.37/2010 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARY LONAPPAN, W/O.LATE LONAPPAN, CHAKKANATTU HOUSE, MARADU DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK 2. C.L.ANTONOY, S/O.LATE LONAPPAN, CHAKKANATTU HOUSE, MARADU DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK 3. K.J.ANTONY, S/O.JOSEPH, KOOMULLIL HOUE, MARADU DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK 4. M.RAJAPPAN, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, DEEPA MANDIRAM, NEAR AYINI TEMPLE, MARADU DESOM MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK' 5. JANAKY, W/O.RAJAPPAN, DEEPA MANDIRAM, NEAR AYINI TEMPLE, MARADU DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK BY ADVS. SRI.SAJU.S.A SMT.P.A.SHEEJA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARADU MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MARADU,ERNAKULAM DIST.682 304, (AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE SUYIT MARADU WAS A PANCHAYATH, HENCE IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE ORDER 1ST RESPONDENT IS DESCRIBED AS MARADU PANCHAYATH) F.A.O. NO.390/2010 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU 682 034. 3. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 011. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.4491/2010 IN F.A.O. NO.390/2010 DISMISSED 17/01/2011 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- F.A.O. NO. 390 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs in O.S.No.1150/2007 on the file of the Pricipal Musiff's Court, Ernakulam are the appellants. The appellants as plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit. The Appellants filed A.S.No.37/2010 before the District Court, Ernakulam and the same is pending consideration. In the said appeal the appellants filed I.A.No.5703/2010 praying to issue an order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from destroying, demolishing or interfering with embankments, culvert etc. in the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the appeal. The Lower Appellate Court passed the impugned order dismissing the I.A. At the outset to say that the Lower Appellate Court did not examine the application for injunction on merits, instead of which two extraneous reasons are stated for dismissing the IA. I do not -2- F.A.O.No.390/2010 propose to examine the merits of the contention of the parties in the IA, in view of the directions to be issued in this appeal. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that for the ends of justice the appeal itself can be disposed of on merits within a short period. Accordingly, the District Judge, Ernakulam is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. In the meantime, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today. It is made clear that the lst respondent-Municipality is at liberty to act in accordance with the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition mentioned in the impugned order. The parties shall appear before the District Court on 10th February, 2011. Appeal is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.