IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 FAO.No. 284 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.1733/07 IN AS.75/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN INTERIM APPLICATION --------------------------------------------------------------- K.MEERA RAJENDRAN, D/O.LATE V.KUNJU KRISHNAN,PUTHEN VEEDU, CHIRAYANKEEZHU DESAM, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN INTERIM APPLICATION ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.JANAMMA, D/O.PADMANABHAN, JYOTHI NILAYAM, PANDAKASSALA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHEELA D/O.P.JANAMMA (NOW IN MALAYSIA GIVEN POWER OF ATTORNEY TO HER SISTER JYOTHI SMT.JYOTHI W/O.K.SOMAN, "KANTHI"CRA 115 PUTHEN ROAD, PETTAH P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: FAO No. 284/08 ORDER ON IA No. 4825/08 IN FAO No.284/08 DISMISSED 13.11.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- F.A.O.No. 284 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Attingal in I.A.No. 1733/07 in A.S. No. 75/2007. It is an application filed by the plaintiff in the suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from making any further construction in the disputed pathway. As per the plaint description, 'A' schedule is the property of the plaintiff, 'B' schedule is the property of the defendants and 'C' schedule is the pathway over which the plaintiff claims right by easement of grant. The plaintiff had obtained the property in the year 1977. The plaintiff was away at Delhi and defendants were away at Singapore. The crucial question is with respect to easement of grant which is specified in the document of title by the plaintiff. The Commissioner who inspected the property was able to find that there was a compound wall aged about 30-40 years and also some tress in the disputed pathway. It is also stated by the appellate Court that there was no application for injunction even during the pendency of the original suit. Therefore the court felt that balance of convenience will not be in favour of the plaintiff F.A.O.No. 284 OF 2008 2 at this juncture. I feel the said approach is proper. But I make it very clear that these observations in an interlocutory order on the basis of the statement in the judgment of the Trial court shall not be the guiding factor to decide the appeal when it is argued on merits. All the relevant materials supplied in the suit with the substantial question of law involved shall be considered by the court and appeal be disposed of. The learned counsel then prays that at least there must be a time bound disposal. Considering the anxiety of the party, I direct the learned subordinate Judge, Attingal where A.S. 75/2007 is pending to consider and dispose of the matter within a period of three months from today. F.A.O. disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm