IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 13312 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2009 IN IA 659/2009 IN CMA.167/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.375/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. VINCENT, S/O. LONAPPAN, CHAKKARAMAKKAL HOUSE, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. CHINNAMMA, W/O. VINCENT, CHAKKARAMAKKAL HOUSE, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- DAISY, W/O. LAZER, VALLACHIRAKARAN HOUSE, ANCHERRY, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13312/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.375/08 OF THE DISTRICT COURT,THRISSUR. P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.1309/08 IN O.S.375/08 DTD.30/04/08. P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.375/08 DTD.16/06/08. P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED IN I.A.1309/08. P5: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN I.A.1309/08 AND 1310/08 IN O.S.375/08 DTD. 30/09/08 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. P6: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.659/09 DTD. 24/03/09 IN CMA 169/08 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. P7: COPY OF OBJECTION IN I.A.659/09 DTD. 8/04/09 IN CMA 169/08 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. P8: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.659/09 DTD. 8/04/09 IN CMA 169/08 OF THE 1ST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT. P9: COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT DTD. 20/03/96 OF SRO,CHAVAKKAD. P10: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.1/09/09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. P11: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DTD. 1/09/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13312 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate order or direction directing the First Additional District Judge, Thrissur to hear and dispose of C.M.A.No.167/2008 and 168/2008 within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court and the operation and implementation of Ext.P8 may be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the C.M.A.” 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.375 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. In the suit, the plaintiffs applied for identical relief of interim injunction as sought for in the suit, till its disposal. Later, another application was also moved for interim mandatory injunction seeking removal of the alleged obstruction caused to the pathway over which the plaintiffs claimed right and sought for the decree of injunction as W.P.(C).No.13312 of 2009 - O 2 against the defendants. Both the applications were heard together and the learned Munsiff dismissed those applications vide Ext.P5 order. Correctness of Ext.P5 order was challenged by the plaintiffs moving two appeals, numbered as C.M.A.166 of 2008 and 167 of 2008. Both of them are pending before the First Additional District Court, Thrissur. In C.M.A.No.167 of 2008 the plaintiffs moved an interlocutory application seeking an interim mandatory injunction alleging that the defendant caused obstruction to the pathway. That application, after hearing both sides, was allowed to some extent directing the defendants to remove the obstruction made by granite stones blocking the pathway so as to enable the petitioners to use that way for access to their property. In default of such removal by the defendants the plaintiffs were also permitted to remove such obstruction and use the way. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P8 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. W.P.(C).No.13312 of 2009 - O 3 4. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P8 order challenged in the writ petition and also other exhibits tendered, I find an early hearing of C.M.Appeals by the appellate court to give a quietus to the controversy is the need of the hour. The trial court, after hearing both sides had disallowed the application for interim injunction and also the mandatory injunction sought for by the plaintiffs. The appeals are preferred against the dismissal of applications. The grievance canvassed by the petitioners/defendants in respect of ext.P8 order may be having some merits as the trial court had found under the common order challenged in the appeals that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the discretionary relief sought for. The legality, propriety and correctness of Ext.P8 order need not be examined by this Court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction and the ends of justice, it appears, would suffice if a direction is given to the court below for early disposal of the two appeals. I make it clear that none of the observations made by me in the judgment shall have any bearing or reflection in the disposal of the appeals on W.P.(C).No.13312 of 2009 - O 4 its merits. I direct the learned District Judge to hear and dispose the two appeals, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition disposed with the above direction. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-