IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10041 of 2009(O) OS.509/2007 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA PETITIONER: --------------- PETER,S/O.JOSEPH, KAKKANATTIL HOUSE, PERINGAZHA KARA,MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O.PAILY PUTHUPLEDATH (H) PERINAZHAKARA MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK 2. SHERRY S/O.PETER,KAKKANATTIL KAKANATTIL HOUSE, PERINGAZHA KARA, MARADY VILLAGE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 10041 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.509 of 2007, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The suit was filed by the first respondent for declaration of natural right of support over plaint A schedule property belonging to the plaintiff and for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to re-insatate the plaint C schedule property belonging to him in its original position. There is also a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from altering the nature and lie of the boundary in between plaint A and B schedule properties. The first defendant in the suit is the son of the second defendant. The trial of the suit has commenced. 2. The writ petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition dated 28.1.2009 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha, under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that some trees standing in the property of the first respondent are likely to fall on the residential building of the petitioner. Ext.P2 petition is pending W.P.(C) NO.10041 OF 2009 :: 2 :: disposal. In that proceeding, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the Village Officer to file a report. Ext.P5 report dated 13.2.2009 was filed by the Village Officer. 3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed an application before the trial court to summon the files relating to Ext.P2 petition. The petition was allowed. The files were summoned and were marked as Ext.X1. The first respondent/plaintiff also prayed to reopen the evidence to enable the trial court to mark Ext.X1. That prayer was also granted. Now, Ext.X1 files are before the trial court. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that because the files in respect of Ext.P2 petition filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate are now produced before the civil court, the Sub Divisional Magistrate is incapacitated to proceed with the case. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent/plaintiff is not very much concerned if the files are returned after substituting certified copies. The counsel for the first respondent also submitted that the first respondent/plaintiff would make appropriate application for getting certified copy of the relevant documents from Ext.X1 files and substitute them for Ext.X1. W.P.(C) NO.10041 OF 2009 :: 3 :: The court below shall allow the same to be done. If the first respondent/plaintiff fails to do so before 6.4.2009, it would be open to the writ petitioner/second defendant to file an application for that purpose and the court below shall allow the same. Ext.X1 files shall be returned to the Sub Divisional Magistrate as expeditiously as possible, after substituting the necessary certified copies. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/