IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20735 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2009 IN IA-518-2009 IN CMA.10/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANKADA SAIDALAVI, S/O.KUTTU HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MENKADA HUSSAIN, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. JAMSHEELA, D/O.KOPPILAN MOHAMMED, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MANKADA MOOSA, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. MANKADA MAMMUDU, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. MANKADA MOIDEEN HAJI, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. PATHUMMU, D/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, THENNALA AMSOM, APLA DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE AND ADV. SRI JIMMY GEORGE FOR R1, R2, R4 TO R7. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20735 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading up to Ext.P9 order and pass an order deleting the condition stipulated in the order while allowing Ext.P8 I.A. ii) Pass an order directing the respondents to maintain status quo of the disputed road. iii) Pass an order staying all further proceedings in CMA 10/2009 of District Court, Manjeri, pending disposal of this writ petition. W.P.(C).No.20735 OF 2009 2 iv) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time. 2. Petitioner is the sole plaintiff in O.S 47/2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. In the suit the petitioner moved an application for interim injunction in respect of a way, to restrain the defendants, who are the respondents, from interfering with his enjoyment over that way. That application after hearing both sides was dismissed. Against that order the petitioner moved an appeal as C.M.A.10/2009 before the District Court, Manjeri and in that appeal an interim order was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo over the way. Subsequently on the objections raised by the respondents the order was modified directing that the use of the way by the petitioner shall not W.P.(C).No.20735 OF 2009 3 be used for vehicular transport. The propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing it is brought to my notice that the appeal before the court below stands posted today for hearing. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances involved, I find a quietus to the issue has to be given by early hearing and disposal of the appeal itself. An order of status quo passed by a court is likely to result in more conflicts at a later point of time, as in many cases a further enquiry as to what was the status quo on the passing of the order may be required if at all the status quo order is flouted by any one of the parties. So much so the apex court as well as this court has W.P.(C).No.20735 OF 2009 4 very often pointed out that status quo orders should not be passed and except in cases that too in which it is unavoidable, and where there are materials to show what exactly is the status quo as on the date of passing of such orders. I direct the court below to hear and dispose the C.M.A if not already heard taken up for disposal, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such disposal, both sides will maintain the status quo as directed by the court below and modified under the impugned order. 4. Writ petition is disposed of. Hand over a copy of the judgment to both sides and transmit by fax a copy to the court below. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv