IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1341 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ CMA.134/2007 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.1050/2007 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ DR.JOY P.J., S/O. LATE P.G.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT JOY'S JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN 19. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SRI.VARGHESE, S/O.CHACKOCHAN PADAPURACKA, BUSINESS, AGED 45 YEARS, THELAPARAMBA, NEAR WARE HOUSE, PETTA P.O. 2. SRI.ARAVINDAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 51 YEARS, REAL ESTATE BROKER, PERIKAD, NEAR GOOD EARTH HAVELI, EROOR WEST P.O. 682 306. 3. SRI.ANIRUDHAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, FISHERMAN, PERIKAD, NEAR GOOD EARTH HAVELI, EROOR WEST P.O., PIN 682 306. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.K.VINODKUMAR (707/89) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1341/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1797/97 OF SRO THRIPOONITHURA. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE SUIT FOR INJUCNTION DT. 7.9.07. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DT. 22.9.07. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.10.07 , THE RELIEF OF INJUCNTION WAS GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE IA. NO.5216/07 DT. 23.11.07. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DT. 15.12.07. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 19.12.07. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 20.12.07. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 27.12.0.7. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1:- COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BYTHE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS.1043/07 OF THE PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R2:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2659/95 SRO , TRIPUNITHURA /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.1341 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of February 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1050/2007, whereby the VI Addl.District Judge has granted a stay of the operation of the order in I.A.No.7015 of 2007 in O.S.No.1050/2007. 2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The plaintiff has purchased the property by virtue of a document in the year 1997 and it is his case that an attempt is made and a new road is formed just prior to the institution of the suit trespassing into the plaint schedule property and therefore he had prayed for injunction with respect to his right in the property. On the other hand, the contesting defendants would contend that the said way is a way by dedication and the plaintiff has no right or possession over the same and therefore resisted the claim. 3. The trial court, on appreciation of the entire materials available, found that the road in question or dispute is a newly formed road and there are no materials to show the same as contended by the defendants and was satisfied with the case of the plaintiff and granted an order of injunction. WP(C)1341/2008 -:2:- The District Judge had suspended the operation of the said injunction order. I am afraid that the learned District Judge has not applied his mind properly to the facts of the case. When a considered order of a learned Munsiff is to be interfered with, the court must find cogent reasons and the court cannot come to the conclusion just because there is a pathway and it has to be protected as if the dedication is proved. I think the said approach of the District Judge is erroneous. But, I am not going to further dwell into the matter because it may cause difficulty for one of the parties as C.M.A is pending. So, the only possible method is to direct the District Court where C.M.A.No.134 of 2007 is pending, to dispose of the same within 3 weeks from today and the petitioner herein is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the VI Addl.District Judge for necessary compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-