IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4335 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.73/2009 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A.JOSE, S/O.LATE ANTONY, KEEKKIRIKATTU HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR KARA AND POST, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANIMALA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIVISION, K.S.E.B, POOVANTHURUTHU POST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P. ( c) No. 4335 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 10-2-2010 JUDGMENT The Writ Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 73 of 1999 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally. The said suit is one for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and others from trespassing into the plaint schedule property admeasuring 40 cents of land. Along with the suit the petitioner filed I.A. No. 393 of 2009 for a temporary injunction in terms of the prayer in the plaint. As per Ext.p3 order dated 15-12-2009 the learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed C.M.A. 3 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Pala. He also filed an interlocutory application for a stay of operation of Ext.P3 order and for status quo. The learned Sub Judge issued notice on the interlocutory application on 16-1-2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the C.M.A. is kept pending before the Sub Court, Pala, the learned Munsiff has posted the suit itself for trial. Hence, this W.P. ( c) No. 4335 of 2010 -:2:- Writ Petition. 2. I heard both sides. 3. When the trial court has dismissed the application for temporary injunction, the petitioner /plaintiff could not have sought ad-interim stay in the C.M.A. filed therefrom. Hence, the order passed by the Sub court issuing notice on I.A. 77 of 2010 cannot be faulted. But that court could have taken C.M.A. itself for hearing and disposal , particularly, when it has refused to grant ad interim order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub Court, Pala to dispose of C.M.A. 3 of 2010 expeditiously and at any rate within 7 months from today after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. The suit shall be taken up for trial only after the disposal of the C.M.A. Status quo as on today shall be maintained by both sides till the disposal of the C.M.A. Sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge