IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22159 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- CMA.49/2008 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.1120/2007 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. BABY P. VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, PARAKKATTU PAYYANAMNYALIL HOUSE, CHETHICODE.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. BIJY P. BABY, S/O. BABY PARAKKATTU, PAYYANAMYALIL HOUSE, CHETHICODE.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ABRAHAM, S/O. LATE ULHANNAN, CHETHICODE.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOHN MATHEW, S/O. LATE MATHAI, EDAMMATTATHIL HOUSE, CHETICHODE.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY R1 ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K. JOHN R2 ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.22159 OF 2008 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 11.4.2008 IN I.A.NO.7523 OF 2007 AND 8876 OF 2007 IN O.S.NO.1120/2007, MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL C.M.A.NO.29/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION (I.A.NO.2967/2008 IN C.M.A.NO.49/2008) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER, DATED 5.6.2008, IN I.A.NO.2967/2008 IN C.M.A.NO.49/2008, DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22159 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the appellants in C.M.A.No.49 of 2008, on the file of District Court, Ernakulam. Respondents are the respondents therein. C.M.A.No.49 of 2008 was filed challenging Ext.P1 order passed by Munsiff, Ernakulam, in I.A.No.7523 of 2007 and I.A.No.8776 of 2007 in O.S.No.1120 of 2007. Under Ext.P1 order, learned Munsiff made absolute the original ex parte order of temporary injunction till disposal of the suit and also granted an interim mandatory injunction directing petitioners herein to remove the fence constructed across plaint C schedule way on the southern side of plaint B schedule property. In C.M.A.No.49 of 2008, petitioners filed I.A.No.2967 of 2008, an application to suspend Ext.P1 order till the disposal of the appeal. Under Ext.P4 order, learned District Judge dismissed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents were heard. W.P.(C) No.22159 of 2008 2 3. When C.M.A.No.49 of 2008 itself is challenging the interim mandatory order of injunction granted by the trial court, learned District Judge should have disposed the appeal, without retaining the appeal, and allowing the interim mandatory order of injunction executed or suspended, the order of mandatory injunction granted by the trial court. Otherwise, no purpose will be served in retaining the C.M.A. on file. In such circumstances, learned District Judge, Ernakulam, is directed to dispose of C.M.A.No.49 of 2008, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim mandatory injunction granted under Ext.P1 order shall not be implemented till disposal of the C.M.A. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.