IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 1300 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- AS.326/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. SREEDHARAN, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.THANNISSERI ACHUTHAN, PAINKUALAM VILLAGE, DESOM THALAPPILLY TALUK, 2. VIJAYAKUAMR @ UNNIKUTTAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.THANNISSERI ACHUTHAN, PAINKULAM VILLAGE DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK 3. CHANDRAMATHY, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.THANNISSERI ACHUTHAN & W/O.KATTUNGAL SATHYAVRATHAN, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM TRICHUR TALUK 4. ROSHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KATTUNGAL SATHYAVRATHAN KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM TRICHUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SRI.N.M.MADHU, SMT.C.S.RAJANI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SIDDIQUE, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.OONGANATTUTHODI UNNIANKUTTY, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, 679 531. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.1300 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 3 rd day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The respondent filed O.S.No.630 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Munsiff of Wadakanchery for injunction restraining the petitioners herein from entering into the plaint schedule property and from cutting and removing the trees including the teak wood trees. As per Ext.P1 judgment dated 30 th September, 2010, the suit was decreed. The decretal portion of the judgment reads as follows: “1. The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from committing trespass into the plaint schedule property and from cutting down trees in the plaint schedule property and from removing the felled teak wood trees and from obstructing the plaintiff from removing the teak wood trees as per law and from causing any alteration to the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property. 2. This decree by itself will not enable by the plaintiff to remove the teak wood trees without obtaining permission from the Forest Department, O.P(C).No.1300 OF 2010 2 if required as per law. 3. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.” 2. The defendants filed A.S.No.326 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Thrissur challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court. Before the Appellate Court, the defendants/appellants filed Exts.P6 to P11 applications, namely, I.A.Nos.3856 of 2010, 3861 of 2010, 3862 of 2010, 3863 of 2010, 3864 of 2010 and 3865 of 2010. It is stated that the interlocutory applications have been posted to 7.1.2011, as per Exts.P14 to P19 orders dated 8 th December, 2010. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to allow Ext.P8 (I.A.No.3862 of 2010) and to set aside Exts.P14 to P19 orders. There is also a prayer to direct the learned District Judge to dispose of Exts.P6 to P11 applications on the next posting date. 3. By Exts.P14 to P19 orders, the learned District Judge only directed to serve copy and to O.P(C).No.1300 OF 2010 3 call the case on 7.1.2011. There is no ground to interfere with those orders. Therefore, the prayer made in the revision petition to that extent does not deserve acceptance. The prayer to allow Ext.P8 does not arise now, as the learned District Judge has not yet disposed of Ext.P8 application. What remains is the prayer to direct the learned District Judge to dispose of Exts.P6 to P11 applications. 4. When the Original Petition came up for admission on 23.12.2010, the Registry was directed to get instructions from the learned District Judge as to when Exts.P6 to P11 can be disposed of. The learned District Judge, in the communication dated 29.12.2010 stated that records were called for from the trial court urgently, but the records have not been received. It is also stated by the learned District Judge that the applications can be disposed of by 21.1.2011. Even if this Original O.P(C).No.1300 OF 2010 4 Petition is admitted and notice sent to the respondent, the disposal of the Original Petition could not be excepted to be made before 21.1.2011. Therefore, it is not necessary to admit the Original Petition at all. Since the learned District Judge has communicated that Exts.P6 to P11 can be disposed of by 21.1.2011, no further orders are required in this Original Petition. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms