IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 SA.No. 265 of 1997(F) ------------------------------- AS.61/1989 of IIND ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.651/1985 of PRL.MUNSIFFCOURT,KOZHIKODE-II .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------------- SMT.A.CHANDRI, W/O. APPUTTY, AGED 59 YEARS, NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI. THOMAS ANTONY KALLANPALLY SRI.JAMAKUDEEN.K.M. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------------ THEKKETHODI MADHUSOODANAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, SECRETARY, MARAD ARAYASAMAJAM, AGED 35 YEARS, NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY SRI T. SANJAY THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.A. NO.265/1997 JUDGMENT when this case was taken up for hearing, neither the appellant nor her counsel was present. The name of the appellant was called. Absent. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for default. 15/10/2010 SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ORDER ON NOS. 714/1997 & 713/1997 IN S.A. 265/1997 DISMISSED 15/10/2010 SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------ S.A. No.265 OF 1997 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Plaintiff in O.S.No.651/1985 on the file of the Munsiff's Curt, Kozhikode is the appellant. She sued seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the sole defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or using the same as a pathway. The defendant claimed right of way through the plaint schedule property. After trial, the suit was dismissed along with O.S.702/1985 which was tried jointly. Though the appellant preferred appeal as A.S.61/89, she was not successful. Assailing the judgments and decrees of the courts below, this Second Appeal was preferred. 2. Today, Adv.Sri.John Joseph, on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that at the time of admission of appeal an interim injunction was granted and it is still in force and that the respondent/defendant had now got a motorable road and that respondent/defendant is not at S.A.No.265/1997 - 2 - all walking through the plaint schedule property. It is also submitted that at present there is no threat of trespass. The above submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is recorded. The appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps