IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3114 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/09/2011 IN IA 9846/2011 IN OS.918/2010 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER (S)/PLAINTIFF: -------------------- LOUISE T.O., AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.THERATTIL OUSEPH, THERATTIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS: --------------- 1. PAULOSE T.O., S/O.THERATTIL OUSEPH, THERATTIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK-680026. 2. JAMES T.P., S/O.PAULOSE, THERATTIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK-680026. 3. JONSON T.P., S/O.PAULOSE, THERATTIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK-680026. 4. RAPHI T.P., S/O.PAULOSE, THERATTIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK-680026. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.3114/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINTIN OS 918/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, TRICHUR EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY ADV. SHRI K.R.HARI BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 30.3.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT WRITTEN STATEMET FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 1.6.2010 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.9846/.2011 IN OS 918/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, TRICHUR EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED BY DR.V.T.VARGHESE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 15.9.2011 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY V.T.VARGHESE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 15.9.201 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF IA 8859/2011 IN OS 918/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.9.2011 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF IA 8858/2011 IN OS 918/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.9.2011 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA DATED 24.09.2011 //true copy// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3114 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.918 of 2010 of the court of learned First Additional Munsiff, Thrissur is the petitioner. That is a suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and submitted a report stating that a new way was seen created along the western side of the suit property, two feet way from the southern compound wall. The 3rd respondent requested that the suit be included in the list for trial. Though petitioner objected it on the ground that steps are not complete, the suit was posted for trial in the special list on 19.09.2011 and as there was no sitting on that day, the case was withdrawn to the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Thrissur for trial. Petitioner again requested to remove the case from the list on the ground that petitioner is laid up and medical records to that effect were produced to substantiate that. The case was adjourned to 20.09.2011 with a direction that petitioner will be examined by the commission. But there was no order appointing an Advocate Commissioner. On 20.09.2011 the case was dismissed for default. According to the petitioner, I.A. No.9846 of 2011 was dismissed on 20.09.2011 putting the date '19.09.2011'. Petitioner filed two applications (Exts.P7 and P8) for restoration of the suit dismissed for default and to direct respondents to maintain status quo. It is the grievance of petitioner that even after dismissal of the suit there was further trespass into the property and commission of waste. The relief O.P(C) No.3114 of 2011 2 prayed for in this petition is for a direction to the respondents to maintain status quo and direct learned Munsiff consider and pass orders on Exts.P7 and P8, applications. 2. I have heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner. Without understanding the situation now, it is not proper for me to issue any direction for maintenance of status quo. At the same time, learned Munsiff is required to pass appropriate orders on Exts.P7 and P8 and, in particular, Ext.P8, application for maintenance of status quo as circumstances warranted having regard to the grievance of petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate has brought to my notice the decision in T.Panneerselvam v. A.Baylis (AIR 1986 Madras 284) where it is held that even when the suit is dismissed for default and an application for restoration is pending it is within the power of the civil court to grant interim injunction until disposal of the application for restoration. Certainly these are matters which the trial court has to take into consideration. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of as follows: i. Learned Principal Munsiff, Thrissur is directed to dispose of Exts.P7 and P8, applications and in particular, Ext.P8, application for maintenance of status quo, as early as possible if the steps are over having O.P(C) No.3114 of 2011 3 regard to the grievance of the petitioner, the circumstances and as provided under law. ii. Learned Munsiff shall give priority for disposal of Ext.P8, application for maintenance of status quo in the light of the apprehension of petitioner. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks