IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19790 of 2010(O) -------------------------- CMA.99/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.300/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. AYYAPPAN S/o. PARACKAL KRISHNAN ENGANDIYOOR AMSOM, DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. RAMAKRISHNAN S/o. PARACKAL VELAPPAN ENGANDIYOOR AMSOM, DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 3. SURENDRAN S/o. CHERKKARA THANDAYAN VEETTIL APPUKUTTAN, VATANAPPILLI AMSOM AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS: --------------- MOHAN SANKAR S/o. VAIKKATTIL NARAYANAN VATANAPPILLY AMSOM AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.19790 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is in challenge of order passed by learned Munsiff, Chavakkad on I.A.No.1645 of 2008 in O.S.No.300 of 2004 of that court. That is a suit filed by the respondent against petitioners seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction concerning plaint A schedule. Respondent filed I.A.No.1031 of 2004 for an order of temporary injunction also in respect of plaint A schedule it is not disputed before me. The Advocate Commissioner who inspected the property submitted his report as to the condition of plaint A schedule as on the date of his visit. Learned Munsiff directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding plaint A schedule. Later, alleging that petitioners violated the order of status quo in that they made certain constructions in plaint A schedule, respondent filed I.A.No.1645 of 2008 for a direction to the petitioners to remove the impugned constructions. As per order the same Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and submitted report about the impugned constructions. Learned Munsiff allowed I.A.No.1645 of 2008 and directed restoration of the property by removing the impugned constructions made in violation of order on I.A.No.1031 of 2004. Impugned constructions W.P.C.No.19790 of 2010 : 2 : were to be removed in the presence of an officer of the court and under supervision of the Advocate commissioner at the expense of respondent herein. That order was confirmed in C.M.A.No.99 of 2008. Judgment of the appellate court is under challenge in this writ petition. The main argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioners is that the order of status quo on I.A.No.1031 of 2004 was only concerning plaint A schedule whereas report of the Advocate Commissioner would show that the impugned constructions are made in plaint B schedule and in the circumstances, courts below went wrong in finding that there is violation of the order of status quo and directing restoration of the property to its original position. Learned counsel has referred to me the reports of the Advocate Commissioner. In response it is contended by learned counsel for respondent that the impugned constructions are made in plaint A schedule and that it could be made clear that removal of the constructions will only be from plaint A schedule to allay the apprehension of petitioners that any structure in plaint B schedule would be removed on the strength of the order on I.A.No.1645 of 2008. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there is no reason to interfere with the order of learned Munsiff as confirmed by the appellate court regarding removal of the structures. But such removal can only be from plaint A W.P.C.No.19790 of 2010 : 3 : schedule since the relief sought for in the suit as well as on I.A.No.1031 of 2004 was only as regard plaint A schedule as the learned counsel for respondent also admitted in fairness. Hence, I make it clear that only the impugned constructions in plaint A schedule will be removed pursuant to the order on I.A.No.1645 of 2008. I also direct that as far as possible trial court shall depute the same Advocate Commissioner who earlier inspected the properties to supervise removal of structures and that the Advocate Commissioner shall ensure that impugned structures are removed only to the extent it is situated in plaint A schedule. With the above clarification and direction, the writ petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-