IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4291 of 2009(J) ------------------------- CMA.113/2008 of DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM OS.1375/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.S.SABUKUTTAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.106, WOODLAND ESTATE APARTMENTS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. WOODLAND ESTATE APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. PREMKUMAR.K., PRESIDENT, WOODLAND APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.407, WOODLAND ESTATE, APARTMENT COMPLEX, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DILEEP.P.G., VICE PRESIDENT, WOODLAND APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.506, WOODLAND ESTATE, APARTMENT COMPLEX, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R1 & 2 SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4291 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed O.S.No.1375/08 on the file of the court of the Principal Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram against the respondents for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint B schedule property or from meddling with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint A schedule property and from obstructing access of the plaintiff to the B schedule property. I.A.No.6402 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner for temporary injunction and I.A.No.6737 of 2008 was filed by the first defendant for an order of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and making illegal constructions in the plaint schedule properties. The trial court disposed of both these applications by the common order dated 12th December 2008, by which both the applications were dismissed and the ex-parte order of injunction passed in I.A.No.6402/2008 was vacated. On appeal by WPC No.4291 /2009 2 the plaintiff as C.M.A.No.113/08, the learned District Judge was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the court below in I.A.No.6402/08. However, the learned District Judge thought that directions should be issued to both parties not to inter meddle with the uncovered area during the pendency of the suit. It was also noticed in the judgment passed by the learned District Judge that except the right to maintain the property, no other right is given to the Association in the disputed area. The plaintiff shall not object to any maintenance work being done in the disputed area by the first defendant Association and the plaintiff shall co-operate with them in doing the maintenance work. It was also made clear that dismissal of the I.A.No.6402 of 2008 will not confer any right on the parties to the proceedings to make any independent claim over the disputed area or to make any construction in that portion by either parties during the pendency of the suit. The court below also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit at the earliest and at any rate before the court closes for summer vacation. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the suit is posted for trial in the list in the WPC No.4291 /2009 3 second week of March 2009. 3. In the nature of the dispute involved in the case and also in view of the fact that the appellate court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, I do not think it proper to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the court below. Since the suit itself is posted for trial, the parties would get an opportunity to put forward their respective contentions and the suit will be disposed of without delay. At this stage, it is not proper to consider the contentions of the parties with reference to the voluminous documentary evidence and the minute details of the respective contentions and to arrive at a finding one way or other. The courts below have exercised the discretion not to grant the reliefs prayed for in the application submitted by the plaintiff as well as in the application submitted by the defendants. The decisions of the courts below are concurrent except for certain minor changes made by the appellate court directing the parties to maintain the status quo with respect the matters mentioned in the judgment. It is not proper for this court at this stage to entertain the Writ Petition and to allow the WPC No.4291 /2009 4 parties to continue the litigation with respect to the interlocutory matter. At the same time, it is necessary to protect the interests of both parties by directing the trial court to dispose of the suit untrammelled by the observations and findings contained in the order and judgment. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the suit untrammelled by any of the observations and findings in the order and in the judgment. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl