IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9481 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- [OS.NO.617/2009 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- NAZEEMA,W/O.RASHEED. VALAYIL, PADINJATTUMKARA VADAKKUM MURI, KUTHIATHODE VILLAGE,CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOHN JUDE ISSAC. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SUBAIR, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, THAMRACHIRAYIL, THURAVOOR P.O.,KUTHATHODE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 9481 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the limited prayer is for a direction to the Sub Court, Cherthala to dispose of C.M.A. 2 of 2010 pending before the said court. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff has instituted O.S. 617 of 2009 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Cherthala. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. 4607 of 2009 for an interim order. Learned Munsiff ordered status quo on that petition. Copy of the order is produced as Ex.P3. Petitioner alleges that violating the said order the respondent started construction in the plaint schedule property. Then the petitioner filed I.A. 236 of 2010. Copy of the same is produced as Ext.P4. Then the respondent moved I.A. 4755 of 2009 seeking to allow him to construct the building in his property. The petitioner filed objection to the said petition. After considering the rival contentions, learned Munsiff WPC.9481/2010. 2 allowed the petition. The petitioner had challenged the order in C.M.A. before the Sub Court, Cherthala. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the appeal is not being heard, and since no stay has been granted, the respondent is carrying on the construction and that causes considerable injury and harm to him. He therefore prayed that there may be a direction to the court below to dispose of the appeal at the earliest and in the meanwhile stay the order passed by the Munsiff. 4. In the light of the order that is proposed to be passed, it is unnecessary to issue notice to the respondent. 5. It is true that the Munsiff's court has allowed the respondents to carry on the construction. Aggrieved by that the petitioner has filed an appeal and the petitioner was unable to get an interim order in her favour. It appears that the lower appellate court was convinced of the fact that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner by the construction allowed to be carried on by the respondent. WPC.9481/2010. 3 On going through the order, it is seen that the respondent had undertaken to demolish the construction if ultimately it is found that the construction carried on by the respondent encroaches into the property of the petitioner. In the light of the above fact, this writ petition is disposed of directing Sub Court, Cherthala to take up C.M.A. 2 of 2010 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.