IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11601 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ CMA.14/2010 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA OS.288/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PONNAMMA GEORGE, PALLATHARAYIL, NADUVILE MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- NOORANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, NOORANADU, MAVELIKKARA ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 11601 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT The limited prayer made in this petition is for a direction to the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikkara to take up I.A. 174 of 2010 in C.M.A. 14 of 2010 on the next posting date itself and dispose of it on merits. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted O.S. 288 of 2009 before the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara. Copy of the plaint is marked as Ext.P1. It is seen that the suit was based on a construction being made in the property. The court below appointed an advocate commissioner, who inspected the property and filed a report and sketch, which is marked as Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, the commission report shows the mischief committed by the defendants. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application for interim injunction, that is, I.A. 1825 of 2009. That was dismissed by Ext.P4 order. WPC.11601/2010. 2 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner took up the matter before the District Court as C.M.A. 14 of 210. In the appeal the petitioner has also filed I.A.174 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent from making any construction in plaint C and D schedule properties and for other reliefs. The complaint is that even though notice was ordered in the appeal on 3.3.2010, the I.A. was posted to 22.3.2010. Now the application stands posted to 8.4.2010. Petitioner points out that he is adversely affected by the non-disposal of the application. He pointed out that an urgent hearing of the petition is necessary. 3. In the light of the order that is proposed to be passed, it is felt that notice to the respondent is unnecessary. 4. Petitioner has highlighted the need to have an urgent hearing of the interlocutory application filed in the appeal. This court is given to understand that the I.A. stands WPC.11601/2010. 3 posted to 8.4.2010. The prayer made by the petitioner appears to be fully justified. In the result, this petition is disposed of directing the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikara to hear I.A.174 of 2010 on 8.4.2010 itself and dispose of the same on merits. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.