IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22472 of 2008(A) -------------------------- CMA.27/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------- M.V.KRISHNAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O MANGATHARA VELAYUDHAN, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. OUSEPUNNI, 37 YEARS, S/O MUDUTH KURIYAKKU, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. MINI,28 YEARS, D/O OUSEPUNNI, KAKKASSERY DESOM,ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3. SAIMON BABU, 33 YEARS, S/O VADAKKOOT KOCHAPPAN, ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 4. KANI 25 YEARS, W/O CHIRIYANKANDATH BABU, AMALANAGAR DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. BABU, 30 YEARS, CHIRIYANKANDATH HOUSE, AMALA NAGAR DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.22472 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.473/2005 on the file of Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. Respondents are the defendants. Suit is for a prohibitory injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the right of way claimed over plaint B schedule property. I.A.1696/2005 was filed for an order of temporary mandatory injunction under Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure. Under Ext.P2 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the application. Petitioner challenged the order before District Court, Thrissur in C.M.A.27/2006. Learned District Judge on reappreciation of the materials, under Ext.P3 order confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner W.P.(C)22472/2008 2 was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below did not properly appreciate the materials and based on Ext.C1 report court should have granted an order of interim mandatory injunction as sought for. 4. On hearing the counsel and on going through Exts.P2 and P3 orders, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. The question whether petitioner is entitled to right of way over plaint B schedule property is to be decided on the evidence to be recorded in the suit. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted steps in the suit are already over. In such circumstance, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing learned Munsiff to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, untrammelled by any observations in Exts.P2 and P3 orders or this judgment. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006