IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 663 of 2011(O) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2010 IN IA.213/2010 IN AS.419/2009 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ VELAPPAN, S/O.KUNJANDI, PANNIPERUNTHALA, KUTTIPALLAM.P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. REP.BY HIS P/A HOLDER UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAPPAN, PANNIPERUNTHALA, KUTTIPALLAM.P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------------------- 1. KANDAMUTHAN, S/O.KAMBAI, PANNIPERUNTHALA, KUTTIPALLAM.P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678 101. 2. SIVARAJAN, S/O.KANDAMUTHAN, -DO- -DO-. 678 101. 3. KAMARAJAN, S/O.KANDAMUTHAN, -DO- -DO-. 678 101. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.C.A.ANOOP THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- OP(C) No.663 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March 2011 Judgment In this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails Ext.P7 order by which his prayer for putting up a boundary wall was declined. 2. The petitioner filed OS No.535/07on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur. He claims to be the owner in absolute possession of 10.5 cents in old Survey No.400/1 (RS No.714/2) of Chittur village. The defendants own property on the western side of the plaint schedule property. Both the plots lie contiguously. It is claimed that both the plots are separated by barbed wire fencing and compound wall. The allegation was that when the petitioner tried to put up a compound wall, the defendants obstructed. That resulted in the filing of the suit. The suit went in favour of the petitioner. The defendants took up the matter in appeal and the appeal is pending as AS No.419/09 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. The petitioner moved IA No.213/10 in the said appeal, seeking permission of the court to put up a compound wall on the basement which was already in existence. The court below, by the OPC663/11 2 impugned order, declined relief on the ground that allowing the prayer would be beyond the scope of the suit itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he may be allowed to put up a compound wall to protect his property. He undertakes to remove the same if ultimately it is found that the basement belongs to the defendants. 3. True, the trial court found in favour of the plaintiff. But the appellate court thought it fit to stay the execution of the decree. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the lower appellate court. However, there will be a direction to the District Court, Palakkad where AS No.419/09 is pending, to take up the appeal soon after the summer vacation and dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of re-opening of the court after summer vacation. The OP(C) is disposed of as above. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta OPC663/11 3 OPC663/11 4