IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 2288 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.191/1991 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: -------------------- 1. T.J.ABRAHAM, PUTHENVEETTIL, THUKALASSERI MURI, THIRUVALLA. 2. ALEYAMMA ABRAHAM, PLAINTIFFS, PUTHENVEETTIL, THUKALASSERI MURI, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU SRI.TITUS MANI RESPONDENT(S)/CR.PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: --------------- ALEYAMMA JOY W/O.JOY, MADATHIL, AZHIKATHU HOUSE KOTTATHODU BHAGOM, THUKALASSERI MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.2288/2011 APPENDIX PETTIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID IA NO.338/2011 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2288 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT The parties, contesting over a right of access claimed by the petitioners had approached this Court in C.R.P.Nos.264 and 265 of 2006. While disposing of those civil revisions this Court directed as an interim arrangement until disposal of the suit that respondent shall provide alternative access to the petitioners for ingress and egress to their property. Appropriate direction in that regard was made in paragraph 6 of the order in C.R.P.Nos. 264 and 265 of 2006. As per that direction respondent was to provide, until disposal of the suit a way having width of three feet starting from the concrete road on the east, going towards west along the northern extremity of the green shaded portion in the sketch referred to in C.R.P.Nos. 264 and 265 of 2006 and reaching the property of petitioners. It was also directed that respondent shall set out the way within two weeks from the date of the order failing which petitioners will be entitled to get it done through the trial court subject to the result of the suit. Accordingly the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and submitted Ext.P1, report and sketch. Grievance of petitioners is that along the southern side of the compound wall separating the property of respondent and Pandisseril Kunjamma it is not possible to set out a way as directed by this Court in paragraph 6 of the order in C.R.P.Nos. 264 and 265 of 2006 since at that portion, there is a disputed property belonging to certain others. OP(C)No.2288/2011 2 2. Learned counsel for respondent would assert that there is no such disputed property on the south of the compound wall separating the property of respondent and Pandisseril Kunjamma and that respondent is prepared to honour the commitment that they have made in this Court while disposing of C.R.P.Nos. 264 and 265 of 2006. 3. It is true that in Ext.P1, report, the Advocate Commissioner has reported that lie of the property is not as shown in Ext.R1, sketch (in W.P.(C) No.26560 of 2009). It is also true that the Advocate Commissioner has shown in the sketch accompanying Ext.P1, report a small bit of land on the south of the compound wall (towards north of property of the respondent) as the disputed property. But learned counsel for respondent has asserted that there is no such dispute and that there is no difficulty for the respondent to provide the alternative way as directed in the order in C.R.P.Nos. 264 and 265 of 2006. The said submission of learned counsel is recorded and that is sufficient to allay the apprehension of petitioners. 4. I make it clear that while setting out the alternative way as directed in the order in C.R.P.Nos. 264 and 265 of 2006 if any third party raises any dispute about setting out such a way, it is open to the parties to approach the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla who I am told is holding full additional charge of learned Munsiff, Thiruvalla and seek appropriate OP(C)No.2288/2011 3 direction/relief (notwithstanding the direction issued in C.R.P.Nos. 264 and 265 of 2006) for the purpose of providing an alternative access to the property of petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for respondent wanted an early disposal of the suit. It is pointed out that the post of Munsiff, Thiruvalla is lying vacant from 22.06.2011 onwards. But learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla is put in full additional charge of learned Munsiff, Thiruvalla. In that situation, having regard to the difficulty being expressed by both sides, learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla shall consider whether the suit could be taken up, tried and disposed of. Parties may request to the learned Magistrate to do so. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of recording the submission made by learned counsel for respondent that alternative way as directed in paragraph 6 of the order in C.R.P.Nos. 264 and 265 of 2006 will be provided within two weeks from this day. It is made clear that if setting out such alternative way is objected by any third party, it is open to the parties or any of them to approach the learned Magistrate who is now holding charge of learned Munsiff and seek appropriate direction/relief (notwithstanding the direction issued as to the location of the alternative way in paragraph 6 of the order in OP(C)No.2288/2011 4 C.R.P.Nos. 264 and 265 of 2006) for the purpose of providing an alternative access to the property of petitioners. Parties are permitted to request learned Magistrate to dispose of the suit as early as possible. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks