IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2010 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12652 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN IA NO.323/2009 OF MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYOLI IN OS.56/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYOLI & CMA.9/2009 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER(S)/IST RESPONDENT/IST DEFENDANT/IST APPELLANT: --------------- KAMBRATH ASSAINAR, S/O. AMMAD, AGED 67 YEARS, TRADER, VILAYATTUR, AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PUTHAN PURAYIL AMMAD, S/O. PAKRU, COOLIE AGED 52 YEARS, VILAYATTUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 2. SISTEN PUTHEN PURAYIL KADEESA, HOUSE WIFE, AGED 62 YEARS, VILAYATTUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 3. SISTERN PUTHAN PURAYIL AYISOMMA, HOUSEWIFE, AGED 47 YEARS, VILAYATTUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. ADV. SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN FOR R1-3 SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12652 of 2010 & I.A.No.5885 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Heard counsel on both sides. 2. Petitioner/defendant challenges Ext.P6, judgment which confirmed Ext.P5, order of status quo on the application of respondents who alleged that petitioner is putting up a building in the suit property. This Court, as per order dated 8.4.2010 granted interim stay of Ext.P6, judgment. The grievance of respondents is that taking advantage of the stay order, petitioner is constructing the building and hence I.A.No.5885 of 2010. 3. Grievance of the respondents is that after having obtained stay of operation of the impugned judgment of the appellate court, petitioner has started with construction of the building in the prime portion of the land sought to be partitioned. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that construction of the building is almost complete and that petitioner may be permitted to complete the work upto and inclusive of roofing. The request is opposed by counsel for respondents. WP(C) No.12652/2010 & IA No.5885/2010 2 4. It is not disputed that a major portion of the structure has already been completed. In the above circumstances, I do not consider it proper to stall construction of the building. Hence petitioner is permitted to complete the work upto and inclusive of roofing (alone) of the building which is now being put up. Petitioner shall not do any other work including plastering or furnishing of the said building or embark upon any other construction until further orders are passed by the trial court in the suit. With the above direction Writ Petition and Interlocutory Application are closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks