IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3165 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ CMA.7/2010 of II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ................................................................................................................................ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, NIRAVATHU PATTATHANAM, MURI, MANAMPALLY, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MANOHARAN PILLAI,S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, UTHARADAM,MANAMPALLY, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-691583 2. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, NIRAVATHU, PATTATHANAM MURI, MANAMPALLAY, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-691583 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DS OP(C).No. 3165 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1:- THE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED THE APPELLATE COURT IN C.M.A.7/2010 DATED 13.6.2011 EXT.P2:- THE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN I.A.NO.995/2011 IN C.M.A. 7/2010 DATED 4.7.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE DS THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3165 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Defendant in O.S. No.2 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Karunagappally is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P2, order on I.A. No.995 of 2011 in C.M.A. No.7 of 2010. First respondent-plaintiff sued petitioner for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain petitioner obstructing plaint B schedule way or committing waste therein. After hearing both sides it is not disputed, learned Munsiff passed an interim order of injunction which petitioner challenged in C.M.A. No.7 of 2010 in the court of learned Second Additional District Judge, Kollam. That appeal was taken up for hearing on 13.06.2011. But as petitioner was not ready to argue the appeal learned District Judge dismissed the appeal directing learned Munsiff to dispose of the suit as early as possible. Petitioner, aggrieved by the said order filed I.A. No.995 of 2011 for a review. That application was dismissed as per Ext.P2, order observing that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner since the appeal was dismissed with a direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose of the suit as early as possible. O.P(C) No.3165 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that on the day the appeal was taken up for hearing, counsel for petitioner was laid up and hence could not get ready for arguing the appeal. It is prayed that petitioner may be given opportunity to argue the case. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case I am not inclined to accept the request. The order of temporary injunction was passed by learned Munsiff on 15.12.1999 and it is not disputed that petitioner is conducting himself in accordance with the said order of injunction. Now by the end of 2011 there is no reason why the said order should be interfered. Moreover, it is also to be remembered that when the appeal was dismissed as petitioner was not ready to argue the appeal, it was a dismissal coming under Rule 19 Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure and the remedy was not by way of review but by way of restoration of the appeal. 4. Learned District Judge has directed learned Munsiff to dispose of the suit as early as possible. In that view of the matter there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order at this O.P(C) No.3165 of 2011 -: 3 :- stage. Leaned Munsiff is directed to comply with the direction of learned District Judge. Original Petition is closed with the above observation and direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv