IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 863 of 2011(O) ------------------------ PETITIONER : ------------------- SUNILKUMAR, S/O.IYYANI MANDAPUTTY KANNAPPAN, NATTIKA VILLAGE DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, NATTIKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NATTIKA 680 132. 2. THALIKULAM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THALIKULAM-680231. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR 680 001. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R1 SR. G.P. SRI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.863 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed A.S.No.105 of 2010, on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.55 of 1999, Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad. The petitioner is the seventh plaintiff in the suit. It is stated that the appeal was filed originally before the District Court, Thrissur as A.S.No.273 of 2007. The appeal was made over to First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur where it was renumbered as A.S.No.105 of 2010. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner filed I.A.No.2495 of 2007 in A.S.No.273 of 2007 for an interim order of injunction and though an application for advancing the hearing was filed in 2010, the application for interim injunction was not considered by the appellate court. O.P.(C) No.863 of 2011 2 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not press for the hearing of I.A.No.2495 of 2007 in A.S.No.273 of 2007 and that was why the court did not take it up for hearing. It is also submitted that all the parties in the appeal are not made parties in the Original Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though an application was filed in March, 2010 to advance the hearing of the case, it was not done and the application for injunction was not taken up. He also submitted that to avoid delay in the matter, all the parties in the appeal are not made parties in the Original Petition and his only prayer is to expedite the matter. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Original Petition is disposed of directing the First O.P.(C) No.863 of 2011 3 Additional Sub Court, Thrissur to expedite the hearing of the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner in A.S.No.105 of 2010, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl