IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7296 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- (OS.NO.673/2006 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- BALAN NADAR, S/O.PONNAYYAN NADAR, MEKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, MYLODE, PONGUMMOODU, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, MR.SAIJO HASSAN, MR.RAJAN VELLOTH, MR.SABU SREEDARAN, MR.PRATHAP PILLAI, MR.RAFEEK.V.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. NADARAJAN, S/O.SANKARAN, ANIL NIVAS, PONGUMMOODU, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ANIL, D/O.NADARAJAN, ANIL NIVAS, PONGUMMOODU, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.7296 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 5th March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction to the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara to stop all further proceedings in EP No.372/09 in OS No.673/2006, pending final disposal of Ext.P2 appeal filed by him. 2. The petitioner instituted a suit as OS No.673/06 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The respondents herein were the defendants in the suit. Plaint B schedule is a pathway involved in the suit. The suit was one for injunction. The allegation was that the defendants were trying to construct a compound wall taking in the portions of plaint B schedule pathway. WPC 7296/10 2 3. The defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement refuting the allegations raised in the plaint. They also raised a counter claim. 4. After trial, the suit was dismissed and the counter claim raised by the defendants was upheld. The petitioner says that he has preferred an appeal against the said Judgment and decree as AS No.37/10 before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. There was delay in filing the appeal and therefore, the petitioner submits, along with the appeal, a petition for delay condonation has also been filed. Thereafter, this Writ Petition is filed, praying for the above relief. 5. It is to be noticed that the decree in the counter claim was passed as early as on 31.10.2008. The petitioner had ample opportunity and sufficient time to file an appeal against the Judgment and decree, which went against him. From the records now produced, it is evident that he has chosen to file the appeal only when execution WPC 7296/10 3 proceedings were initiated by the decree holder. There are no bona fides in the prayer now made in this Petition. Reserving the right of the petitioner to get appropriate reliefs from the Appellate Court, this Writ Petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 7296/10 4