IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31660 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.453/2008 of I ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.JAYASREE, D/O.SARADA, T.C.15/1864, KUNNUKUZHI, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUGANDHI BEENADEV, W/O.LATE SISUPALAN, PANKAJ NIVAS, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DHANYA BEENADEV, D/O.SUGANDHI BEENADEV, PANKAJ NIVAS, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31660 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner was the defendant in O.S No.453 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. Suit was one for declaration of the right of prescriptive easement over a way and also for a perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondents are the plaintiffs. Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs negativing the contentions raised by the petitioner/defendant who in her written statement had also raised a counter claim disputing the existence of the way. After disposal of the suit, petitioner/defendant moved an application before the court below for a prohibitory order to restrain the respondents/plaintiffs from committing any waste over 'C' schedule property till she is provided W.P.(C).No.31660 OF 2009 Page numbers grace period to prefer an appeal against the decision of the trial court. Ext.P5 is the copy of that application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application has been dismissed by the learned Munsiff. In the writ petition the relief canvassed under Ext.P5 is reiterated with a further prayer for directing the court below to issue a copy of the judgment rendered in the suit expeditiously for which an application is stated to have been filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, it is evident that in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents a decree of prohibitory injunction had been passed against the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the pathway. Counter injunction sought for by the petitioner in the suit by way of counter claim W.P.(C).No.31660 OF 2009 Page numbers disputing the existence of pathway had been negatived. When that be so, there cannot be any order restraining the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit as desired by the petitioner till she is given an opportunity to prefer an appeal. So much so, I find no impropriety in declining that request of the petitioner by the court below. There will be a direction to the court below to issue a carbon copy of the judgment to the petitioners if already applied for, within a period of two weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv